Task force on Promoting Affordable Housingnaredco.in/notification/pdfs/Draft Task Force Report...

TASK FORCE REPORT

November 2012This report presents the main recommendations of the Task Force set-up to Develop transparent,

qualified criteria for Affordable Housing for circulation to States

Task force on Promoting

Affordable Housing

Government of India

Ministry of Housing & Urban Poverty Alleviation

November 2012This report presents the main recommendations of the Task Force set-up to Develop transparent,

qualified criteria for Affordable Housing for circulation to States

Task force on Promoting

Affordable Housing

Government of India


TASK FORCE REPORT

This Report on Affordable Housing is the outcome of over one and half years' effort. The Task Force has undertaken

studies and extensive consultations with a variety of stakeholders including the private sector, non governmental

sectors, state governments and urban local bodies as well as other Government of India departments as well as

external experts and academics. The studies undertaken include a rapid review of affordable housing practices

and some documentation of special projects in specific states; revisited some of the complexities and ambiguities

in definitions and planning norms; examined procedures and analysed various models including having

international case studies. The recommendations made are primarily aimed at providing a fillip to catalyse EWS &

LIG housing projects through appropriate policy instruments.

The members of the Committee have given their time generously and we have also had enormous support from

the States in the consultation process. I am grateful to each one of the members of the Task Force. I also would like

to take this opportunity to mention a few names of my colleagues and thank them for their immense support. They

are Dr.P.K.Mohanty, Additional Secretary, ShriV.P.Baligar, CMD, HUDCO, Shri R. V. Verma CMD, NHB,

ShriSusheelKumar, Joint Secretary, Smt. Aruna Sundararajan, former Joint Secretary, SmtS.R.Rajashekar, Director. I

would specially thank NIUA, FICCI, CREDAI, NAREDCO, VBHC, Janaadhar and MONITOR group and participants of

workshops for their valuable suggestions, presentations and interactions to understand the real issues. A special

word also for Smt Kiran Dhingra, my predecessor, under whose leadership this Task Force was initiated. I would

particularly like to thank Smt Deepti Gaur Mukherjee, Director, RAY and Member Convenor of the Task Force and

the entire team of Support to National Policies for Urban Poverty Reduction (SNPUPR) led by Shri Shubhagato

Dasgupta.

It gives me immense pleasure and satisfaction, to submit this report to the Government, as the Chairperson of the

Task Force, on behalf of myself and all the members of the Task Force.

Arun Kumar Misra

Chairperson

Task Force on Promoting Affordable Housing

TASK FORCE REPORT 2012

MEMBERS OF THE TASK FORCE

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

Shri. Arun Kumar Misra, Secretary, MoHUPA

Smt. Gauri Kumar, Additional Secretary, M/o Environment &

Forests (Earlier Principal Secretary , UD, Govt. of Gujarat)

Shri. G. S. Sandhu, Secretary, State Housing Department, Rajasthan

Shri K. Shivaji, CMD, Maharashtra Industrial Development Corporation,

Shri Ashish Sharma, Commissioner, Pimpri Chinchwad Municipal Corporation

Shri Debashis Sen, IAS, Secretary (Urban Development and Town &

Country Planning), Govt. of West Bengal

Shri S P S Parihar, Secretary (Urban Administration and

Development Department), Govt. of Madhya Pradesh

Smt. Aruna Sundararajan, Joint Secretary, MoHUPA

Shri V 'Naresh' Narasimhan, Architect and Director,

Janaadhar Constructions Pvt. Ltd., Bengaluru

Dr.Bimal Patel, Town Planner

Shri Satish Magar, CMD, Magar patta Township, Pune

Shri Jaitirath 'Jerry' Rao, Value & Budget Housing Corporation Ltd., Bengaluru

Shri Pradeep Jain, Chairman, Confederation of Real Estate Developers'

Association of India (CREDAI), New Delhi

Shri Rohtas Goel, Chairman & Managing Director,

National Real Estate Development Council, New Delhi

Smt. Deepti Gaur Mukherjee, Director, M/oHUPA

Chairperson

Member

Member

Member

Member

Member

Member

Member

Member

Member

Member

Member

Member

Member

Convener

Abbreviations ................................................................................................................................... i-ii

Definitions as used in this Report..................................................................................................... iii

Summary and Recommendations .................................................................................................... iv-xi

Annexure Section.............................................................................................................................

1. Introduction ................................................................................................................................. 1

2. Terms of Reference (TOR) and Key Decisions about the ToR...................................................... 1

3. Findings of the Rapid Review ...................................................................................................... 3

3.1 Review of Affordable Housing Criteria: .................................................................................. 4

3.2 Institutional, legal, and procedural issues, related to the project and building plan

sanctioning process ...................................................................................................................... 6

3.3 Key incentives provided by States for Affordable Housing ................................................ 9

4. Recommendations of the Task Forceon Definitions ................................................................... 10

4.1 Affordable Housing criteria and core definitions............................................................... 10

4.2 Sizes of EWS and LIG Dwelling Units and method of measurement (Carpet Area): .......... 10

4.3 Income criteria based on Income ceiling of households: .................................................. 14

4.4 Affordability, borrowing capacity and house price to income multiples: .......................... 16

5. Recomendations on Possible incentives for the affordable housing sector .............................. 18

6. Recommendations : Supply side financial incentives................................................................. 19

6.1 Development Related Charges .......................................................................................... 19

6.2 Service Tax Exemptions...................................................................................................... 20

6.3 Direct Tax rebates for Affordable Housing projects ........................................................... 20

6.4 Inclusion of Affordable Housing into the Harmonized Master list of Infrastructure

sub-sectors of the Government of India....................................................................................... 22

6.5 Direct Capital grant support to Affordable Housing projects ............................................ 24

6.6 Developing new avenues for debt financing for Affordable Housing projects .................. 24

6.7 Foreign Direct Investment for Affordable Housing ............................................................ 25

7. Recommendations: Supply Side Non Financial incentives......................................................... 26

7.1 Reduce timelines for approval of Affordable Housing projects ......................................... 26

7.2 Inventory of state/ city land holdings and increasing land supply for Affordable Housing 28

7.3 Increasing Land availability for Affordable Housing Projects............................................. 31

7.4 Increasing FSI and providing TDR facilities ........................................................................ 32

7.5 Revision of the Building Codes .......................................................................................... 34

7.6 Policy support for the promotion of mass housing construction technologies................. 35

8. Recommendations for Demand Side Financial incentives ......................................................... 35

8.1 Interest Subsidy ................................................................................................................. 36

8.2 Appropriate reduction of stamp duty for registration of property in Affordable Housing

projects ........................................................................................................................................ 36

8.3 Priority Sector Lending for Affordable Housing Projects ................................................... 37

9. Recommendations for Demand Side Non Financial in_GoBack_GoBackcentives ..................... 42

9.1 Key non-financial problems faced by low income group in accessing Affordable Housing 43

9.2 Case Studies of low income developers and housing finance agencies. ........................... 43

9.3 Key Recommendations for demand side interventions by State governments................. 45

10. Indicative quantification of recommended subsidies .............................................................. 46

10.1 Quantification of recommended subsidies as per the generic model ............................... 46

10.2 States to develop Affordable housing policies/schemes................................................ 48

11. Suggestions to recast the AHP Scheme..................................................................................... 49

11.1 Introduction....................................................................................................................... 49

11.2 Observations and Recommendations of the Task Force on the AHP Scheme and the

reform condition on reservation of land ...................................................................................... 50

11.3 Routing of AHP subsidy ..................................................................................................... 53

11.4 Recommendations of the Task Force on the subsidy aspect of the AHP Scheme ............. 54

TABLE OF CONTENTS

TASK FORCE REPORT 2012

LIST OF BOXES, TABLES AND ANNEXURES

BOXES

Box I: Models of Affordable Housing in Rajasthan

Box II: Joint Sector Model –Udayan by Bengal Ambuja

Box III: Green Channel: Hyderabad

Box IV: Automated building plan approval: Pune

Box V: Model-4, Rajasthan- Privatedevelopers on Government land

Box VI: Vijayawada land sharing Model under PPP

Box VII: MagarpattaModel- Farmers as Developers

Box VIII: Hyderabad Model

Box IX: Gujarat Model

Box X: Creation of Additional land for slum housing using FSI

Box XI: Maharashtra – Reservation and Use of FSI for Slum development

Box XII: Examples of Initiatives of private developers for low cost housing in Pune

Box XIII: Initiatives of Private developers in Ahmadabad

Box XIV: Initiatives of Micro-fin companies to serve low cost housing sector

Box XV: Examples of Initiatives to promote EWS/LIG home ownership

TABLE

Table1: Broad Categories of Approvals for Housing Projects across states

Table 2: Estimation of EWS and LIG Household incomes, 2012 based on projections

of different indices

Table 3: Recommended income ceiling

Table 4: Analysis of affordability gap

Table 5: Total Banking sector credit to the Housing sector

Table 6: Trends in Housing loan disbursements

Table 7: Summary of impact of the Task Force recommendations

Table 8: Impact of State concessions without capital or interest subsidy

ANNEXURE SECTION

Annex I: Initial Terms of Reference including list of members of the Task Force

Annex II: Revised Terms of Reference and list of members of the Task Force

Annex III: State Policies on Housing and recommended incentives

Annex IV: Summary of different definitions of Affordable Housing

Annex V: Generalized Affordable Housing Implementation framework

based on the Rajasthan Model

Annex-VI: Loading on Carpet Area for EWS

Annex-VII: Loading on Carpet Area for LIG

Annex-VIII: Summery of the proposal for revision in regards to fixation of

income ceilings for ISHUP Scheme

Annex-IX: Model for Affordable Housing In Partnership


iTASK FORCE REPORT 2012

ABBREVIATIONS

AHP Affordable Housing in Partnership

AHDP Affordable Housing Development Plan

AHTF Affordable Housing Task Force

ASI Archaeological Survey of India

AAI Airport Authority of India

AVL AvasVikas Limited

BSUP Basic Services for Urban Poor

BAHDL Bengal Ambuja Housing Development LTD

CDP City Development Plan

CBDT Central Board of Direct Taxes

CREDAI Confederation of Real Estate Developers' Associations of India

DU Dwelling Unit

EWS Economically Weaker Section

EMI Equated Monthly Instalment

ECS Electronic Clearing Services

EDC External Development Charges

FAR Floor Area Ratio

FSI Floor Space Index

FICCI Federation of Indian Chambers of Commerce and Industry

GoI Government of India

GACL Gujarat Ambuja Cements Ltd

GDCR General Development Control Regulation

HIG Higher Income Group

HUDCO Housing & Urban Development Corporation Limited

HDFC Housing Development Finance Corporation Limited

HMDA Hyderabad Metropolitan Development Authority

IHSDP Integrated Housing and Slum Development Programme

ISHUP Interest Subsidy Scheme for Housing the Urban Poor

IT Information Technology

JNNURM Jawaharlal Nehru. National Urban Renewal Mission

LIG Low Income Group

LAA Land Acquisition Act

MOHUPA Ministry of Housing and Poverty Alleviation

MIG Middle Income Group

MGI McKinsey Global Institute

MHFC Micro Housing Finance Corporation Ltd.


iiTASK FORCE REPORT 2012

MMR Mumbai Metropolitan Region

NIUA National Institute of Urban Affairs

NAREDCO National Real Estate Development Council

NGO Non Governmental Organisation

NBC National Building Code

PPP Public Private Partnership

PPSU Policy and Programme Support Unit

RAY Rajiv AwasYojana

SJSRY SwarnaJayantiShahariRojgarYojana

SNPUPR Support to National Policies for Urban Poverty Reduction

SRA Slum Rehabilitation Authority

TDR Transfer of Development Rights

TOR Terms of Reference

ULB Urban Local Body

VGF Viability Gap Fund

WBHB West Bengal Housing Board


iiiTASK FORCE REPORT 2012

DEFINITIONS AS USED IN THIS REPORT

The following terms and definitions are applicable unless otherwise specified.

i. Affordable Housing: Individual dwelling units with a Carpet Area of not more than 60 sq. mt. and

preferably within the price range of 5 times the annual income of the household as notified, either as a

single unit or part of a building complex with multiple dwelling units.

ii. Affordable Housing Projects: Housing projects where at least 60 percent of the FAR/ FSI is used for

dwelling units of Carpet Area of not more than 60 sq. mts. The project shall also reserve 15 percent of the

total FAR/ FSI or 35 percent of the total number of dwelling units for EWS category.

iii. Built up area and Plinth Area: As used in this report is, Plinth area shall mean the built up covered

measured at the floor level of the basement or of any storey, the same as defined in detail in the IS code - IS

3861 : 2002, “Indian Standard Method of Measurement of Plinth, Carpet and Rentable Areas (Second

Revision)”.

iv. Carpet Area for a Affordable Housing Dwelling Unit: The carpet area as used in this report is the usable

and habitable rooms at any floor level (excluding the area of the wall). While the method of measurement

of carpet area will be the same as in the IS code 3861:2002, it will include carpet area of the living room(s),

bedroom(s), kitchen area, lavatory(s), bathroom(s), and balcony / verandah, if provided, in accordance

with the definition of the Dwelling Unit/Tenement as provided in the National Building Code, 2005 which is

an independent housing unit with separate facilities for living, cooking and sanitary requirements

v. Developer: A private, public or joint sector enterprise engaged in the production and sale or rental of

housing.

vi. FSI (Floor Space Index) or FAR (Floor Area Ratio): The quotient obtained by dividing the total covered area

(plinth area) on all the floors by the area of the plot:

i. FAR = Total covered area of all the floors/ (divided by)Plot Area

vii. Middle Income Group (MIG) : In this report, MIG area is as per the guidelines of the Affordable Housing in

Partnership Scheme, 2009 published by the Ministry of Housing and Urban Poverty Alleviation,

Government of India, which is upto a maximum super built area of 1200 sq ft.

viii. Rentable Area: As used in this report, shall mean the carpet area at any floor level including areas as

defined in the IS code - IS 3861 : 2002, “Indian Standard Method of Measurement of Plinth, Carpet and

Rentable Areas (Second Revision)”.

ix. Project approval: All procedures involved in obtaining clearances for an affordable housing project

including, but not limited to building permits, land related approvals, environmental clearances and other

related approvals.

x. Public Private Partnership: A business venture for production and sale or rental of housing involving both

private and public sector agencies. Involvement of public agencies may be in the form of active facilitation

through supportive policy/ regulation or as equity holders.


ivTASK FORCE REPORT 2012

Even the most cursory look at our cities, reveals the huge urban housing shortage. The recently released Report of

the Technical Group on Urban Housing Shortage (TG-12) (2012-17) has estimated the Housing shortage to be 18.78

million out of which 56.18 percent is in the economically weaker segments and 39.44 percent is in the Lower

income group categories. As per projections of a report by the McKinsey Global Institute, the housing shortage

under business as usual circumstances could go up to 38 million units by 2030.

India has seen a burst in home ownership in the last ten to fifteen years. With the expansion of housing finance

institutions and regulatory and fiscal support, mortgage interest rates have come down from 16% in the

middle/late 1990's to 9% in the early part of the last decade, especially for the middle and higher income

segments. This has lead to average growth of housing mortgage portfolio's of banks by close to 40 per cent

annually, consistently higher than any other asset class. In real terms these changes have resulted in a whole new

generation of younger citizens accessing home ownership. The average age of a house owner has come down by

twenty years in the last decade. However, this has essentially benefited the growing middle class in India and these

benefits are yet to reach the poorer segments.

For the last many decades, public sector entities such as State Housing Boards and Development Authorities were

the only suppliers of Affordable Housing stock through projects for EWS and LIG categories. An encouraging factor

though is that in the last five years a set of new private sector developers and financial institutions have started

developing new models for building and financing Affordable Housing. However from the scale of the problem it is

clear from the scale of the housing shortage, that the public sector and a few private players alone cannot address

the problem and if we are to realistically address this huge challenge we have to make the housing and housing

finance markets work for the poor.

It is within this context that the Ministry of Housing and Urban Poverty Alleviation, set up a Task Force vide Officeth

Order M11022/1/2009-Housing dated the 26 of November 2010, for developing transparent qualified criteria

and a separate set of guidance for affordable housing in PPP projects for circulation to states, aimed at developing

recommendations to create an enabling framework for increased private sector participation in Affordable

Housing.

This report of the Task Force, after elaborating on its Terms of Reference, presents the findings of a Rapid Review of

planning approaches adopted in different states. It then discusses and compares the various criteria used to define

Affordable Housing, reviews the institutional and procedural issues related to plan approvals and the key

incentives recommended by state governments for this housing segment. The next section of the report presents

the main recommendations of the Task Force which are categorised into four buckets namely, (a) Supply side

financial interventions; (b) Supply side non-financial interventions; (c) Demand side financial interventions; and

(d) Demand side non-financial interventions.

SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATIONS


The list of Key Recommendations are as below:

1. Affordable Housing criteria and core definitions

The Task Force suggests that a set of “core criteria” should be adopted, which should form the basis of all

policies/schemes at national as well as state level to ensure that there is a synergy and a shared objective

across all governmental efforts aimed at the sector. The “core criteria” suggested in these

recommendations are in terms of ranges so as to allow for some flexibility to implementing agencies to

respond to ground realities and market conditions in the vast diversity of cities across the country.

1.1 Sizes of EWS and LIG Dwelling Units and method of measurement (Carpet Area):

The Task Force recommends that to establish the minimum size of a habitable EWS dwelling unit, the

absolute minimum size of areas as presented in the NBC code should be followed. The recommendations

on the size of Affordable Housing Dwelling Units are as follows:

· For Economically Weaker Section (EWS): 21- 27sq.m Carpet Area

· For Lower Income Group (LIG-A): 28-40 sq.m Carpet Area

· For Upper Lower Income Group (LIG-B): 41-60 sq.m Carpet Area

· The Task Force also recommends that these ranges, especially if subsidies are tied to them should

have an admissible marginal variation of 10%. Therefore while the minimum area of the EWS

would be fixed at 21 sq.m and the maximum for LIGB would be fixed at 60 sq.m, the EWS

maximum area could be between 25.2 and 30.8 sq.m and the maximum area for LIGB could be

between 36.9 and 45.1 sq.m. This would give states the flexibility to decide the final area

specifications for projects within their particular situations.

· While the BIS Code IS 3861 : 2002, disallows the use of Super Built-up area, but in practise sale

price calculations by developers are based on varying methods of measurement of the Super

Built-up area and is therefore directly linked to the income segment to which the dwelling unit is

affordable. The Task Force therefore recommends that considering general practices, feedback

from developers and local bodies and as per actual calculation of dwelling units of EWS and LIG

category, a 25% loading is recommended as the maximum permissible loading on carpet area to

calculate Built-up Area and 40% to calculate Super-built-up (Saleable) area

1.2 Income criteria based on Income ceiling of households:

Based on the results of calculations, the maximum Household Income for the EWS and LIG category are

recommended to be Rs. 8,000/- and Rs 16,000/- per month and since many households in this category do

not have regular monthly income an annual income of Rs. 100,000 for EWS and Rs. 200,000/- for LIG

households could also be used.

The Task Force also felt that for cities and urban agglomerations with more than a million population state

governments could consider an increase of upto a maximum of 25 percent on the recommended

household income levels mentioned above, if deemed necessary, based on proper justification.

VTASK FORCE REPORT 2012


1.3 Affordability, borrowing capacity and house price to income multiples:

The Task Force notes that at current unit prices, EWS and LIG segments cannot afford housing and capital

and/or interest subsidies are required. If such subsidies can be made available the affordability multiple

can be increased upto 5 for EWS segments, thus making EWS housing affordable for those within the

proposed income ceilings. The Task Force recommends that the desirable goal of a house price to income

multiple that should be pursued for Affordable Housing projects should be 5 as against 3 to 4.

2 Recommendations on Possible incentives for the affordable housing sector

2.1 Supply side financial incentives

· Development Related Charges: The Task Force strongly recommends States to consider similar

concessions in development related charges as best suited to their condition to encourage Affordable

Housing projects.

· Service Tax exemptions: Service Tax has exempted the taxable services by way of construction pertaining

to low cost houses up to a carpet area of 60 square metres which have been approved under the 'Scheme

of Affordable Housing in Partnership' framed by MoHUPA. This concession could be up to a level of 3.5 to

4.5 percent of the project cost and therefore could serve as a major incentive for affordable housing

developments. The Task Force recommends for revamping the AHP scheme so that this concession is able

to yield the intended results.

· Direct Tax rebates for Affordable Housing projects: The Task Force recommends that MoHUPA pursue

with CBDT to include the entire capital investment in rental housing as eligible deduction under 35AD (5)

(ac). The Task Force also recommends that the 35 AD concession should be available to all projects

approved under the Affordable Housing in Partnership Scheme.

· Section 80-IA of the Income Tax Act: AHTF recommends that as an attractive incentive to the developers,

Affordable Housing projects may also be included in Sub-section (4) to avail the benefit of Section 80-IA.

· The tax deduction u/s 80IB (10): AHTF recommends that provisions of section 80 IB (10) be made

applicable for Affordable Housing projects sanctioned after 31st March 2008, at least for ten years till 2018

which fulfil the conditions prescribed by the MoHUPA, in anticipation of the inclusion of Affordable

Housing within section 80IA.

· Including Affordable Housing, as per the Task Force definition, as ''infrastructure facility'': The Task Force

recommends that will also assist the financiers of such projects to be eligible for a host of tax concessions

otherwise currently available to infrastructure projects. This, the task force feels will go a long way in

reducing the cost of the Affordable Housing dwelling units and incentivise the development of such

projects.

ViTASK FORCE REPORT 2012


· Direct Capital grant support to Affordable Housing projects:

Viability gap funding (VGF) : AHTF recommends that the Government of India should consider making

Viability Gap Funding available through the established Government of India facility for Affordable

Housing projects.

· Developing new avenues for debt financing for Affordable Housing projects:

An advisory should be issued recommending that recognized provident fund should be encouraged to

invest in affordable home projects that meet the investment rating norms of such funds. Task Force

recommends that MOHUPA should take up with the Ministry of Finance for Life Insurance Companies to

permit Life Insurance Companies (other than LIC) to invest in Affordable Home Project Finance subject to

usual commercial considerations. LIC and HUDCO must also be encouraged to invest in SPVs that

undertake Affordable Home Projects.

· Foreign Direct Investment for Affordable Housing: While Foreign Direct Investment is allowed in Housing

projects, the Task Force recommends that special dispensation should be made for Affordable Housing

projects. The critrea for minimum built up area should be brought down form 50,000 sq. m to 20,000 sq.m

and the minimum investment brought down from 5 million dollars to 2 million dollars.

2.2 Supply side non-financial incentives

· Reduce timelines for approval of Affordable Housing projects:

AHTF strongly recommends that States should take up measures to establish a Single Window,fast track

approval process. It further recommends:-

A simplified set of regulations and procedures for issue of building permits, accompanied by clear

instructions/ checklists/ guidelines/ manuals on how to submit an application. Creation of an institutional

mechanism to facilitate faster conversion of agricultural land to non-agricultural land within the boundary

of the urban planning area where the land is earmarked for residential use in the master plan. State should

ensure streamlining of all state and local clearances to facilitate approval within a maximum of 60 days.

Streamlining and fast-tracking of central government clearances from Ministry of Environment & Forest,

Archaeological Survey of India (ASI), Airport Authority of India (AAI) and Ministry of Defence needs to be

pursued by the central government as per recommendations being worked out by the Committee on

Streamlining approval process.The affordable housing projects should have a special dispensation in

getting clearances from the Ministry of Environment & Forest and the threshold for such projects should

be increased from 20,000 Sq. meters to 50,000 square meters.

viiTASK FORCE REPORT 2012


· Inventory of state/ city land holdings and increasing land supply for Affordable Housing: The Task Force

therefore recommends that, State and cities shall make a full inventory of their land holdings in cities and

constitute a land bank and prepare an asset management plan for better managing the available land and

targeting it supply to create Affordable Housing Dwelling Units.

· Increasing Land availability for Affordable Housing Projects: The Task Force is of the opinion that as

even with the support of a set of incentives, the reform in JNNURM program for reservation of 20 % of

developed land (10 % of Gross land) for plotted housing development schemes for the urban poor would

be too high and beyond the cross subsidy capacity of both the developers/projects as well as the buyers.

The Task Force would like to recommend that the reservation requirement under the RAY programme

should be at least 15%-20%,of developed land or at least 35% of the dwelling units in each project with a

plot size of minimum hectare. The 35% of the DUs, reserved at the project level, should be for EWS and LIG

Category with at least 25% of these DUs are of the EWS category. Simultaneously with this reservation the

State governments should also provide compensatory FSI. The Task Force feels that this will be better

received by the industry and will also increase the number of dwelling units for the target categories. This

will create more dwelling units in the states and is a higher requirement than the 25% as provided in the

AHP Scheme, currently.

· Increasing FSI and providing TDR facilities: The Task Force recommends that increasing FSI/FAR and

providing Transferable Development Rights (TDR) approach is to be used in two situations. Firstly FAR/FSI

should be increased in all Affordable Housing projects where the FSI/FAR is lower than 1.75 to allow for

increased cross subsidy possibility. Secondly in situations where under the Land reservation reform

condition under the RAY Scheme where a portion of the land/FAR is handed over to government

additional /compensatory FSI at least equal to the FSI actually consumed for EWS/LIG segment in an

automatic route can be offered to the developer. This additional FSI, if unutilized on the same project land,

could be given in the form of TDR, through a zonal planning system, to be used in other parts of the town as

per norms and guidelines fixed by the State government in this regard. In both the situations states and

ULBs may be required to also increase the applicable density levels.

· Revision of the Building Codes: The standards and norms, which often are not tuned to the requirements

of Affordable Housing should be revised.

· Revision in Planning and Development Norms:

A few of the most important initiatives state governments could take are:

· Develop zones for EWS/LIG/MIG in the Master plan

· States may have liberal development norms for Affordable Housing as follows:-

· FAR : 1.75 (Minimum)

· Ground Coverage: 50% (Maximum)

viiiTASK FORCE REPORT 2012


· Density: 350 DUs/Hectare (Minimum).

· Parking norms need to be reduced/rationalized for affordable housing projects

· The Task Force recommends that the MOHUPA should carry out a separate study on

building standards and norms to revise the provisions of “Part III, Annexure C of the

National

· Building Code of India” with respect to Affordable Housing, especially for group housing

society projects which are not included in the code at present.

· Policy support for the promotion of mass housing construction technologies:

MoHUPA should put in efforts towards standardisation of norms and building codes across different

regions of the country which could help in development and use of mass housing construction

technologies. These technologies if used at scale could reduce the time required in construction and

would finally reduce the costs of dwelling units. Some examples of technological innovations and

standardization at structural level which could be a) Structural Uniform Criteria for symmetrical structures

b) Load Bearing Monolithic structures c) Low Rise buildings with monolithic structures; d) Mat

Foundations and e) Soil Improvement technologies.

2.3 Demand side financial incentives

· Interest Subsidy: The Task Force recommends that the Interest Subsidy Scheme for Housing the Urban

Poor (ISHUP) scheme should be restructured to adopt the EWS/LIG definitions as mentioned in earlier in

this report and the restrictive size of the loan against which the 5% interest subsidy is received should be

increased to at least Rs 5 lakhs instead of 1 lakh.

· A moratorium for 3 years in payment of EMI may be also be considered to relieve the EWS/LIG housing

buyers from the burden of paying EMI and house rent simultaneously while the house is under

construction. Lending banks may be asked to explore the possibility of deferred payment of EMI and a

scheme to this effect either as a component of ISHUP or in any other arrangement should be created.

· Appropriate reduction of stamp duty for registration of property in Affordable Housing projects: The

AHTF recommends that States should adopt a policy of having nominal Stamp duty for EWS and LIG

category and 5% for higher categories with Rs. 100 for the EWS housing as practiced in various States.

· Priority Sector Lending for Affordable Housing Projects: The Task Force notes that despite significant

overall growth of institutional credit in the housing sector, the Government priority of making housing

credit available to the economically weaker sections remains unfulfilled. The Task Force is of the opinion

that a relook is necessary given the incentives and programmes that are being launched by the

Government of India.

ixTASK FORCE REPORT 2012


· The Task Force recommends the creation of a sub target of 3% of the total loans and advances of the

banks/gross bank credit for the purpose of housing loans to EWS/LIG segments to be achieved by the end

of the 12th Five Year Plan period i.e. 2017. It also recommends that housing loans to borrowers in the

EWS/LIG segments should also be considered on the lines of NRLM and SJSRY and should be included in

the category of advances to weaker sections and should be made eligible to meet the sub-target of 10% for

weaker sections. If the off-take under the EWS/LIG category loans grows significantly, the overall limit for

weaker section loans may also be raised further by 2% at a later point of time provided the additional 2% is

only for housing loans for EWS/LIG segments.

The Task Force, therefore recommends that the National Housing Bank may further develop suitable

mechanism (in terms of refinance schemes, promotional and developmental endeavours etc.) to

encourage increased flow of loans from housing finance companies to EWS/LIG segments either through a

priority sector lending framework or other appropriate measures.

The Task Force recommends that in a situation where banks are unable to achieve this sub-target for

EWS/LIG segments, the banks may be permitted to make available undisbursed amounts to a Fund to be

created for “EWS/LIG Urban Housing and Infrastructure Fund” on the lines of Rural Infrastructure

Development Fund (RIDF). It also recommends that cost of the dwelling unit in the housing projects

sanctioned by banks exclusively for the purpose of construction of houses to economically weaker

sections and low income groups, be increased from Rs 5 lakhs to Rs10 lakhs per dwelling unit, to be

considered as part of the Bank's Priority Sector lending.

2.4 Demand side non-financial incentives

· Key non-financial problems faced by low income group in accessing Affordable Housing: The Task Force

recommended that each state government and urban local body initiate programs to create/ support

entities that accelerate the home ownership process in low income groups through the following generic

types of interventions.

· As a facilitator to enable the EWS/ LIG families to access institutional credit including subsidies

under existing schemes.

· Outreach to low income families on the importance of home ownership for financial security.

· Educational programs for financial literacy with respect to home loans.

· Active handholding in the process of securing home loans and purchasing houses.

· Educational intervention in completed projects regarding building maintenance and community

management.

· Interventions in skill development livelihood, health and education in completed projects to

ensure the upward mobility of these low income home owners.

· Support new 'Know your client' procedures being adopted by new Housing finance providers.

XTASK FORCE REPORT 2012


· The operationalization of the Rajiv Awas Shelter Fund, to be used for funding a instrument to keep

the slum/urban poor beneficiary from turning defaulter due to unemployment, death or other

genuine distress and thereby risk forfeiture of dwelling unit and foreclosure on loan; the State

Governments should develop an instrument could also have a specific window to share the

lender's costs of servicing a loan.

· Other than this the State may also consider creating, or enabling, in each slum or city, an

Intermediating Agency between the lender and the borrower, which may be a Rajiv AwasYojana

Residents Housing Association of the slum dwellers, or such a housing association in collaboration

with a microfinance agency or a joint venture between a municipal or State Housing Board, which

will take care of tracking each borrower, and ensuring repayment. In the event of intentional

failure to pay the loan, this intermediating agency should also provide help to the lender to

foreclose on the mortgage.

· It may be possible and desirable to integrate many of the above interventions with already

existing poverty alleviation programs (e.g. SJSRY) of the state government and urban local body.

3 Indicative quantification of recommended subsidies

Based on the generic model adopted by the Task Force with the assumptions and calculations presented in

Annex- IX, the Tasks Force has quantified the per sq ft impact of each of the concessions recommended,

as presented in Table 7.

4 Suggestions to recast the AHP Scheme

The Task Force has also made comprehensive set of recommendations related to the recast of the

Affordable Housing in partnership Scheme of the Government of India, which include directing the AHP

grants to EWS dwelling units alone; development of state level schemes to ensure beneficiary

identification; streamlining and raising the subsidy amounts as well as a smother process of ensuring that

the subsidy is delivered to the end beneficiary.

XiTASK FORCE REPORT 2012


1. INTRODUCTION

1.1 The Ministry of Housing and Urban Poverty Alleviation, Government of India, constituted a Task Force vide

thOffice Order M11022/1/2009-Housing dated the 26 of November 2010 (Annex-1), for developing

transparent qualified criteria and a separate set of guidelines for affordable housing in PPP projects for

circulation to states.

1.2 The Task Force was set up under the Chairpersonship of Secretary, Ministry of Housing and Urban Poverty

Alleviation, and included subject specialists and industry leaders as well as concerned central, state and

local body officials. The list of members is at Annex I and II.

1.3 MOHUPA's intention in setting up this Task Force, as elucidated in the Office Order, was to receive a set of

considered recommendations which could help the government develop a strategy to address some of

the complexities and ambiguities in building bye-laws; consider the incorporation of incremental growth

and temporal standards in urban planning density norms, through FSI and TDR like instruments; and to

streamline the approval system for Affordable Housing projects.

1.4 The Task Force has held 4formal meetings, the first on December 30, 2010, the second on June 22, 2011,

the third on September 30, 2011 and the fourth on September 6, 2012. At these meetings, the Task Force

reviewed (a) recommendations of previous committees, (b) previous research studies undertaken on

Affordable Housing, and (c) presentations made by external experts/agencies i.e NIUA, FICCI, CREDAI and

NAREDCO. The Task Force also mandated the Policy and Programme Support Unit (PPSU) under the

Support to National Policies for Urban Poverty Reduction Project (SNPUPR) of the Ministry of Housing and

Urban Poverty Alleviation to undertake a Rapid Review on affordable housing and fast track building

approval experiences in select states and cities. In addition, two consultations were held with real estate

thdevelopers by organizing workshops, the 1st one on 25-26 February, 2012 to work out various definitions

nd thand possible incentives and the 2 in on 12 July, 2012 to understand the positive experiences and the

challenges faced by developers and housing finance companies already working in low income group

segment.

1TASK FORCE REPORT 2012

2. TERMS OF REFERENCE (TOR) ANDKEYDECISIONS ABOUT THE TOR

2.1 The initial Terms of reference of this Task Force included the following (attached as Annex I):

a) “The Committee will initially conduct a rapid review of the sanctioning process of development plans

for affordable housing in mega cities and tier 2 cities across India, and will locate the institutional,

legal, and procedural issues, that hinder and slow down the sanctioning process.



b) With the problematic issues being identified, the Committee will design a two stage Affordable

Housing Development Plan (henceforth “AHDP”) sanctioning process based upon a “Model AHDP

Guidelines” document.

c) The “Model AHDP Guidelines” will be a comprehensive document, of detailed information on

necessary, sufficient and desirable criteria - project details, financial and construction related - for

AHDPs to be sanctioned, by the different government bodies concerned. The Model AHDP guidelines,

will constitute a standard and uniformly applied (hence – transparent) set of directives, against which

the suitability of all affordable housing projects can be objectively judged. This document will address

strategic, tactical, and procedural issues.”

2.2 At the first meeting of the Task Force the Terms of Reference of the Committee was discussed and the

outline and content of a Rapid Review of affordable housing practices and special projects in specific

ndstates, was finalized. At the second meeting of the Task Force dated June 22 2011, the results of the Rapid

Review, were discussed. The key findings of the same are presented in the next section.

2.3 Based on review of the presentations and deliberations thereon, the Committee felt that while the overall

simplification and streamlining of approval processes constitute an important measure to promote

affordable housing, however given that there are significant variations among states and cities, a

standardized two stage development and building plan sanctioning process prima-facie, may not be

feasible in the short term. It also felt that any such attempt by the Centre would require more detailed

examination and consultation than what the Task Force has been assigned/ resourced with. With this

approach in mind the Committee decided that it should focus on strategic and tactical issues in promoting

Affordable Housing. This was also specifically mentioned by the Chairperson of the Task Force at its third

meeting, wherein he requested the members to suggest incentives to catalyze private participation in

EWS and LIG housing projects, by using appropriate policy instruments. This approach has been reflected

in the addendum of the ToR of the AHTF through an Office order numbered No. M-11022/1/2009-

H(Pt/FTS/577) dated 26 September, 2011, which stated that the Committee should incorporate

“Suggestions for various models for incentivizing the private sector to the States especially with regard to

reservation of land for EWS/LIG and their involvement under “RajivAwasYojana”(Annex II). In view of the

above approach agreed upon by the Task Force, the MoHUPA has already constituted a Committee for

1Streamlining Approval Procedure for Real Estate Projects .

1The Committee was constituted vide F.No. O-17034/139/2010-H (Part)/FTS-5524 dated 04/04/2012 under the chairpersonship ofShriDhanendra

Kumar (IAS, Retd.) with members from relevant Ministries of the Central Govt., State Govt., representatives from real estate business and

Technocrats. The primary terms of reference are, to examine few best practices on streamlining building plan approval processes in cities like, Pune,

Hyderabad, Mysore and Indore etc; Study of Bihar model on the obtaining of building plan approvals from certified architects; Suggest a

methodology for fast tracking Central/State building clearances; and Suggest a systematic approach through which all cities and states can

develop fast track, single window clearance mechanisms giving specific focus on simplification of procedural aspects, formulating single

composite form with complete listing of the set of documents necessary to accord sanction by the authorities and automated system for building

plan approval with special emphasis on Affordable Housing.


As mentioned above under the guidance of the Affordable Housing Task Force a rapid review was conducted and

presented at the second meeting of the Task Force. The states covered in the review included Rajasthan (Box I),

West Bengal (Box II), Gujarat, Karnataka, Maharashtra, and Uttar Pradesh. A summary of the policies prevalent in

the various states is at Annex III. The key issues covered as part of the rapid review in the context of the ToRs were:

· Review of Affordable Housing Criteria in terms of size, income and sale price

· Institutional, legal, and procedural issues, that hinder and slow down the sanctioning process

· Key incentives provided by States for Affordable Housing

3. FINDINGS OF THE RAPID REVIEW


Box I: Models of Affordable Housing in Rajasthan

Model No-1: Mandatory Provisions:

Rajasthan Housing Board to construct at least 50% plots/ houses/ flats of EWS/LIG category in its schemes. Another 20% of the plots/

houses/ flats to be constructed for MIG-A category.

All Urban Local Bodies including Jaipur Development Authority, Jodhpur Development Authority, Urban Improvement Trusts and Municipal

bodies to allot/construct at least 25% plots/houses/flats of EWS/LIG category in their residential/ housing schemes. Another 20% of the

plots/ houses/ flats to be allotted to MIG-A category.

Private developers to reserve 15% of the dwelling units to be used for EWS/LIG housing in each of their Township/Group Housing Schemes.

Model No-2: Private developers on land owned by them:

The selected developers to take up construction of EWS/LIG flats (G+2/G+3 format) on minimum 40% of the total land set apart for h o u s i n g

scheme under the Policy.

The built up EWS/LIG flats to be handed over to the nodal agency (AvasVikas Limited) at pre-determined prices, to be allotted to the

eligible beneficiaries by the nodal agency.

The developer would be free to construct MIG/HIG flats on remaining land as per his choice.

Several incentives offered to developers like double of the normal FAR, TDR facility, waiver of EDC, Building plan approval fee,

conversion charges, 10% of the total land allowed for commercial use, fast track approval etc.

Model No-3: Private developers on acquired land:

The selected developer can take up construction of EWS/LIG flats (G+2/G+3) on the land under acquisition by ULBs. The land would be

made available to the developer on payment of compensation (Land Acquisition cost + 10% Administration charges). All other

parameters to be followed and incentives to the developer would be as per Model No. 2.

Model No-4: Private developers on Government land (For Rental housing or outright sale basis)

Earmarked Government land to be offered free of cost to the developer to be selected through an open bidding process. The developer

offering the maximum number of EWS/LIG flats (Built up, G+2/G+3 formats) free of cost to the ULB would be awarded the project. At

least 50% houses should be of EWS category.

The developer shall be free to use the remaining land as per his choice for residential purpose with 10% for commercial use.

All other parameters to be followed and incentives to the developer would be as per Model No. 2.

Model No-5: Slum Housing:

The model is based on various schemes approved by Government of India and also on the lines of "Mumbai Model" of slum

redevelopment with private sector participation.

Source: Rajasthan Affordable Housing Policy, 2009


Box II: Joint Sector Model –Udayan by Bengal Ambuja

“Udayan-The Condoville” is a partnership project , which in the late 1990s and early 2000s,was considered as one of the most successful PPP

housing projects. The Model is based on the principle of cross-subsidization. M/S Gujarat Ambuja Cements Ltd (GACL), a private sector company

came forward as a partner to the government, having sufficient resources and expertise, to implement housing projects on commercial basis in the

name of Bengal Ambuja Housing Development LTD(BAHDL).

The WBHB and the GACL, each hold 49.5% equity in this joint venture company and the remaining 1% is offered to the public. The land assembly and

acquisition for the project was the responsibility of the WBHB. The BAHDL was responsible for the overall formulation, implementation and

monitoring of the project and the responsibility of GACL was the overall management of the affairs of the company including monitoring and

supervision of entire construction activities in conformity with the statutory requirements.

For financing the construction of dwelling units, HUDCO was approached by BAHDL and HUDCO provided project finance . Beside the above

agencies, an NGO named “Mass Education” has been involved in the project maintenance activities. Home Trust Finance Company Ltd, a subsidiary

of Gujarat Ambuja Cements Ltd (later acquired by HDFC), had also been involved in the project, though indirectly, to provide housing finance to the

beneficiaries.

Source: Interviews and various documents including the Workshop Report on “Public private partnerships for urban housing in India”, National

Conference on Housing and Human Settlements, organized by Ministry of Housing & Urban Poverty Alleviation, 17-18 November, 2006

3.1 Review of Affordable Housing Criteria:

3.1.1 The rapid review has brought out that, each state has adopted different standards/norms of size

and sale price of dwelling unit, in their definitions for Affordable Housing. At the central

government level various government schemes and committees have adopted different

definitions from time to time. As per the real estate industry, Affordable Housing is used loosely to

refer to projects in the periphery of large cities, which have smaller DU sizes and where the sale

prices range between Rs. 5 – 15 lacs. It was also found that Banks and Housing Finance Institutions

use a set of specific income related ratios such as house price to income ratio and maximum EMI to

gross household monthly income, etc to calculate the borrowing capacity of clients, thereby

deciding the price of DUs which are affordable to individual clients. The various definitions are

discussed below and a comparative table of the criteria that constitute the definition of Affordable

Housing in various states is at Annex IV.

3.1.2 Central Government definitions

3.1.2.1 A 'High Level Task Force on Affordable Housing for All' under the Chairmanship of Shri Deepak

Parekh, Chairman of the Housing Development Finance Corporation Limited (HDFC), was set up by

the Ministry of Housing and Urban Poverty Alleviation in early 2008. The report of this Committee

defined Affordable Housing for households belonging to EWS and LIG sections respectively as:

“A unit with a carpet area most likely between 300 and 600 sqft, with (i) the cost not exceeding four

times the household gross annual income (ii) EMI/rent not exceeding 30 percent of the

household's gross monthly income”.



3.1.2.2 As per the Affordable Housing in Partnership Scheme guidelines, which is a scheme launched by the

Ministry of Housing and Urban Poverty Alleviation, Government of India, in 2009, affordable houses are

defined as houses ranging from about 300 square feet (super built up area) for EWS, 500 square feet for

LIG and 600 square feet to 1200 square feet for MIG, at costs that permit repayment of home loans in

monthly instalments not exceeding 30% to 40% of the monthly income of the buyer. In terms of carpet

area, an EWS category house would be taken as having a minimum 25 square meters of carpet area and

the carpet area of an LIG category house would be limited to a maximum of 48 square meters. The carpet

area of an MIG house would be limited to a maximum of 80 square meters.

3.1.3 State Government definitions

3.1.3.1 Definitions of Affordable Housing vary from State to State and are based on the definition of income levels

and/or sizes of the dwelling units. The Rajasthan Housing Board defines dwelling units for EWS households

(monthly income uptoRs. 3300) as flats with a ceiling cost of Rs. 1.9 lakh with a super-built up area of 325

sq. ft. (with 2 rooms, a kitchen and bathroom) and flats for LIG households (monthly income Rs 3,301 to

7,500 )as flats with a ceiling cost of Rs. 3.25 lakh with a super-built-up area of 500 sq. ft. (with 3 rooms, a

kitchen, bathroom and balcony).

3.1.3.2 The MMRDA Development Control Regulations, implemented in the Mumbai Metropolitan Region

(MMR), stipulate a size criterion of 225 sq. ft. - 270 sq. ft. for affordable housing units. In case of West

Bengal, there is no codified policy for “Affordable Housing” but under the joint venture model, EWS flats

are those that have a minimum Plinth area of 200 square feet and maximum price of Rs 1.75 lakhs and are

allocated to beneficiaries having a monthly income upto Rs 10,000 or less. LIG flats are those that are

allocated to beneficiaries with a monthly income between Rs. 10,001-15,000 and have a minimum plinth

area of 400 square feet and maximum price of Rs 4.10 lakh.

3.1.4 Private Real Estate Sector

3.1.4.1 Over the last few years, a number of developers have entered into the low cost housing segment by

offering houses of size between 200 square feet and 600 square feet and price varying from Rs.4 lakhs to

Rs. 10 lakhs depending on the location of the project. However the prices of the EWS/LIG units and the

households that are being targeted are not strictly as per the limits/norms specified by GoI or State

Governments and the designs vary widely in terms of rooms and facilities.



3.1.5 Others

3.1.5.1 Independent advisory organizations use their own definitions for affordable housing. A McKinsey Global

2Institute report supports variable standards for affordable housing and proposes that the definition

should be based on varying incomes and family sizes, rather than using a “one size fits all”, definition. Their

report defines the market for affordable housing to consist of a 'Deprived' income segment which as

defined in that report are the urban households earning less than Rs 90,000; and the 'Aspirers' income

segment which as defined in that report are the urban households earning between Rs 90,000 and Rs 2

lakhs, annually.

3.1.5.2 HDFC evaluates the maximum purchasing affordability as 5.1 times the annual income of a household.

However in practice it has been found that for most housing finance institutions the affordability

multiplier for EWS and LIG categories, is much lowerat close to a maximum of 3 times the annual income.

33.1.5.3 KPMG's report on affordable housing projects in India,categorisesdevelopments according to income

levels and house plans. It mentions that- EWS households, with annual incomes of less than Rs. 1.5 lakh

access housing units typically less than or equal to 300 sq. ft., with limited amenities and located on city

peripheries and are often financed by Micro Finance Institutions. The report mentions that-LIG

households with annual incomes between Rs 1.5 lakh – 3 lakh access housing which have basic amenities,

are between 300-1200 sq. ft. of built up space, and are often located within the city and financed by the

formal banking sector.

3.2 Institutional, legal, and procedural issues, related to the project and building plan sanctioning process

3.2.1 In an effort to document the list of permits and to analyze the basis for the scrutiny for each of the permits

a framework for the assessment and diagnosis was developed by the AHTF which covered (a) Greenfield

situations, normally in peri-urban areas where land cost is the least but time taken to get permissions for

land use status and environmental clearances etc. is the greatest (b) Non-municipal land where no layout

design is available and sometimes the land use status and the status as per revenue records is not in

consonance; (c) Non-municipal land where the basic layout has been designed by the development

authority concerned and some basic level of infrastructure is present and (d) Existing vacant land under

municipality where the land cost is usually the highest. The Rapid Review scanned secondary sources and

undertook a set of interviews with both public and private sector stakeholders to arrive at a

comprehensive list of permits needed in each of the states under the study. The key findings of this

assessment are discussed in the following two sections.

2India's Urban Awakening, April 2010

3KPMG Advisory: “Affordable Housing – A key growth driver in the real estate sector?, 2010”



3.2.2 List of approvals required

3.2.2.1 As regards the approval processes the various permits are based on i) tier of government which is

responsible for the permit; ii) objective of the scrutiny and iii) basis of the scrutiny. It was found that the

long list of permits often exceeding fifty in number for each state/project could be classified into eight

categories as presented in Table 1 below. The Task Force opined that such a categorization could lead the

way for redesigning and simplifying the procedures for building permits. However the Task Force felt that

further development of this area was not possible given the width and mandate of the Task Force, but

proposed that the Central Government should examine ways to incentivize state governments to focus on

reforms of the building plan approval process.

Table1: Broad Categories of Approvals for Housing Projects across states

SL No.SL No.Categories

of approvals

Tier of

GovernmentObjective of scrutiny Basis of scrutiny

Ownership

(Registration of

properties)

Permit for conversion

(Revenue department)

State

government

State

government

Establish ownership Verification of past

records1

2

3

4

5

Allow non-agricultural

urban uses

Conformity to Master

Plan/ Regional plans/

access to infrastructure,

availability of water,

power etc.

Land use verification

(Town Planning

department)

Parastatal/

Local govt./

State government

Conformity to Master/

Zonal/ layout plans

Master/ Zonal/

Layout plans

Building bye laws

(Municipal corporation

/dev authority)

Parastatal/

Local government

To protect public health,

safety and general welfare

as they relate to the

construction and occupancy

of buildings and structures

Various codes and

standards as applicable

in a particular jurisdiction

NOC from other

departments

State government To protect public health,

safety and general welfare

as they relate to the

construction and occupancy

of buildings and structures

Various codes and

standards as applicable

in a particular jurisdiction



3.2.3 Differential urban planning regimes

The Rapid Review also revealed that differing urban physical planning systems in the states, have a direct

bearing on the plan approval processes. Since the Master Plan is a statutory document that establishes

development norms, the building plan approval process can be more easily streamlined in cities that have

operational master plans as some of the more critical and controversial issues are generally resolved at the

Master Plan level. The Rapid Review found that not all states and large cities have/make Master Plans

(such as West Bengal). However even in states and cities that have operational master plans, it also found

that in many of these cases the Master Plans are not created on the basis of revenue maps, e.g Delhi and

Rajasthan. This practise results in development of Master Plans which are essentially conceptual and do

not contribute significantly in making the verification of land parcels and their use simpler at the building

plan approval stage. Many such states do try and resolve this issue through the zonal planning process,

however there are significant time lags between notification of Master plans and notification of zonal

plans, reducing the effectiveness of the Master Plan with regard to approval of building and housing

projects. There are only a handful of states such as Madhya Pradesh, Karnataka, Gujarat and a few others

where the Master Plan are made on revenue plans andwhere the Master Plans can help in determining a

number of issues related to building plan approvals, thereby directly contributing to quickening the

Building Plan approval process.

The Rapid Review also found that some cities have re-engineered their processes and have moved to

streamlined Building Plan approval processes for housing through a “single window system”. For example,

the Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation has introduced building permission under what is called

the `Green Channel' since 2010 to grant building plan approvals. This was implemented for buildings up to

Ground+3 floors (12 meters height) or plots within 1,000 square meters in the approved layouts of

Physical inspection on

Commencement of

Project

Occupancy and

Completion

Central government

clearance

Parastatal/ Local

government

Parastatal/

Local Govt

National

Government

(delegated to

state

governmentfor

smaller projects)

To verify compliance with

approvals especially for

building components which

are not visible after

construction is completed

To verify compliance with

approvals after completion

of construction

Adherence to national

policies, especially the

policiesregardingenvironment,

pollution, air-ports,

protection of

heritagemonuments, etc.

Site inspection

Site inspection

Environmental impact

assessment and

mitigation plans,

minimum standards, etc.

6

7

8



Hyderabad Metropolitan Development Authority (HMDA), (Box III). The Pune Municipal Corporation has

also successfully re-engineered their building permit processes integrating computerized procedures for

submission and verification of documents and drawings through “single window system” (Box IV).This

system ensures smoother approval of building plans within a fixed time, through the consent of the

stakeholders in a transparent manner. Recently, Indore has also started implementation of a similar

automated system.

3.3 Key incentives provided by States for Affordable Housing

3.3.1 The Rapid Review was also successful in informing the Task Force of the various EWS/LIG Housing schemes

and policies in the states studied and the incentives that they provide for Affordable Housing. A summary

of the key incentives provided for through different state policies is at Annex III and it can be seen that

while many States Governments have Affordable Housing policies only a few have proceeded with

creating schemes for operationalizing their policies. Some of the key features of two policies/schemes are

presented below.

3.3.2 Rajasthan Affordable Housing Policy – 2009, provides a set of incentives for projects that are approved

under it, which include (a) Additional FAR – Double of the permissible FAR for the relevant zone along with

the Transferable Development Rights (TDR); (b) Waiver of External Development Charges, Building plan

approval fees and Conversion charges; (c) allowing Commercial use upto 10% of plot area (i.e increased

cross subsidy possibility); (d)Fast track approval of the project – within 30 days. The policy also ensures buy

back of the Affordable Dwelling Units by the nodal agency of the State Govt. at pre-determined price.

Box III: Green Channel: Hyderabad

Box IV: Automated building plan approval: Pune

The city of Hyderabad has radically revised its building regulations, effectively eliminating the concept of FAR/ FSI as well as coverage, and replacing

it with a system of simple controls for setbacks related to road width and height. The quantum of built up area is controlled only by these simple

controls . This is an interesting experiment in allowing the market to determine viable density.

The GHMC had also introduced building permission under `Green Channel' on October, 2010 to dispose of building applications and also to

eliminate malpractice. It was implemented for buildings up to Ground+3 floors (12 meters height) or plots within 1,000 square meters in the

approved layouts of Hyderabad Metropolitan Development Authority (HMDA). As per the norms, applications have to be submitted through

registered architects, who would check all the drawings of the proposed buildings and other documents whether they are prepared as per the

building rules or zonal regulations for releasing the permission. As per this system, the official concerned would be penalized at the rate of Rs 50 per

day, if there is any delay, in clearing files till the permission is granted. The amount would be recovered from the salary of the officer concerned.

Most importantly, no additional fee would be levied on builders under this channel.

The Pune Municipal Corporation has re-engineered their building permit processes integrating computerized procedures for submission and

verification of documents and drawings through a 'Single Window' system. It has ensured smoother approval of building permission within a fixed

time, through the consent of the stakeholders which is a transparent mechanism to approve the Plans. The most important aspect of this approach

is the adoption of workflow automation, reducing human error, increasing accountability and enhancing efficiency. After adopting the new system,

time required for sanctioning of building proposal has been reduced to 21 days from 45-50 days.



3.3.3 Madhya Pradesh Housing & Habitat Policy 2007,does provide for additional FSI in projects which

provide higher developed areas for EWS/LIG housing as well as one time transfer of additional FAR to

another location prescribed under a TDR Scheme, however the policy is yet to be operationalized.

4. RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE TASK FORCEON DEFINITIONS

Based on results of the findings of the Rapid Review presented above and a series of consultations and written

communications from various State Governments and associations of housing developers, the Task Force has

compiled a set of recommendations which are presented in the section below. The recommendations section

firstly states the Task Force's position regarding the definition of Affordable Housing; the next sections dwells upon

supply and demand side interventions that State and the Central Government should consider providing to

Affordable Housing projects; followed by another section which puts forward its recommendations with respect

to the revamping of the Affordable Housing in Partnership Scheme (AHP) of the Government of India. The Task

Force believes that these sets of recommendations if implemented would help the development of a robust

Affordable Housing sector in the country.

4.1 Affordable Housing criteria and core definitions

4.1.1 After studying different Affordable Housing criteria and definitions the Task Force felt that the

Government of India should adopt a broad and inclusive set of criteria and could leave it to states and

specific schemes to incorporate, more specific criteria as may be felt necessary for implementation in

specific contexts. The Task Force suggests that a set of “core criteria” should be adopted, which should

form the basis of all policies/schemes at national as well as state level to ensure that there is a synergy and

a shared objective across all governmental efforts aimed at the sector. The “core criteria” suggested in

these recommendations are in terms of ranges so as to allow for some flexibility to implementing agencies

to respond to ground realities and market conditions in the vast diversity of cities across the country.

4.1.2 The recommendations of the AHTF on the “core criteria” that should make up the definition of Affordable

Housing projects are, a) Sizes of EWS and LIG Dwelling Units based on Carpet Area; b) Income ceiling of

EWS/LIG households; and c) House price to income multiple. These criteria are explained in detail in the

following sections.

4.2 Sizes of EWS and LIG Dwelling Units and method of measurement (Carpet Area):

4.2.1 As revealed by the rapid review, definitions based on area across various schemes and states, as shown in

Annex- IV, have significant variations and hence need clarification and standardization essentially along

two aspects:

i Method of Measurement i.e. Carpet area, Built-up area or Super Built-up area, that should be the

basis of the definition of Affordable Housing units.



The Task Force notes that the terminology 'Carpet area' has been used in the Affordable Housing in

Partnership guidelines, the Rajiv AwasYojana guidelines (“25 sqmtrs carpet area, including, two rooms,

balcony, a water sealed toilet, bathroom, individual potable water connection, and space for a kitchen”),

as well as in guidance around the JNNURM. It has also been used in the Draft Real Estate Bill.

The Task Force has taken into consideration, the IS code (IS 3861 : 2002) as drafted by the Bureau of Indian

Standards (BIS) and as presented in the “Indian Standard Method of Measurement of Plinth, Carpet and

Rentable Areas (Second Revision)”which lays out the method of measurement of Plinth Area, Carpet Area

4and Rentable Area in residential buildings. It has also considered the National Building Code of India

(NBC), 2005. On reading them together and based on discussions with engineers and planners it has

established that-

· ADwelling Unit/Tenement is defined, by the NBC code, as an “independent housing unit with

separate facilities for living, cooking and sanitary requirements.”

· The Method of Measurement of Carpet Area for residential buildings as per IS 3861 : 2002;

excludes facilities for cooking and sanitary requirements.

The Task Force would therefore like to recommend that for defining Affordable Housing Dwelling

Units Carpet Area should be used as the universally applicable Method of Measurement. Further that

since Dwelling Units are being defined as against residential buildings the Carpet Area calculation

should include separate facilities for living, cooking and sanitary requirements which are a minimum

of two rooms, a water sealed toilet, bathroom, individual potable water connection, and space for a

kitchen.

ii With respect to Maximum and Minimum area for each Affordable Housing Dwelling Unit

category.

4“Rentable Area” means the carpet area at any floor level, including the carpet area of kitchen, pantry, store, lavatory, bathroom, fifty percent of unglazed

verandah and hundred percent of glazed verandah, in accordance with the provision of the Indian Standard-Method of Measurement of Plinth, Carpet and

Rentable Areas of Buildings, IS 3861:2002, formulated and published by the Bureau of Indian Standards and CDBT notification No. 1/2012 [F.No.142/24/2011-

SO(TPL)] dated 2-1-2012 on affordable housing under Section 35 AD of Income Tax.



For calculating the minimum area of DUs, the Task Force recommends following the National Building

5Code of India (NBC), 2005 drafted by the BIS, be used as the determining guidance to calculate the

minimum Carpet Area for dwelling units of EWS category. The Task Force has taken into consideration

that:

· MoHUPA Schemes (JNNURM, AHP, RAY) provide funding support to Dwelling Units based on the

Carpet Area of living, cooking and sanitary requirements as well as balconies.

· JNNURM and RAY Schemes provide minimum size of housing unit to be provided on ownership

basis to be of Carpet Area of 25 sq.m inclusive of balcony,

6· The NBC code, specifies the inclusion of balcony to be an optional part of the Dwelling Unit. It

also lays out minimum requirements in relation to dwelling units that they should have at least

two habitable rooms, where the total area of both the rooms is not less than 15.5 sq.m; for

separate water closet and bathroom the minimum area should be 0.9 sq.m and 1.2 sq.mand

for combined water closet and bathroom it could be 1.8 sq.m and the minimum area for the

kitchen should be 3.3 sq.m. It also states that where provided the minimum width of the

Balcony should be 0.9 m and a maximum of 1.2 m.

The Task Force recommends that to establish the minimum size of a habitable EWS dwelling unit, the

absolute minimum size of areas as presented in the NBC code should be followed. This is

recommended, as the Task Force is clear that while larger areas and more facilities, such as store and

balcony (increasingly balconies are not provided in high density cities like Mumbai) may be desirable,

the increase of costs related to these facilities adds to the cost of the dwelling units and makes them

even more unaffordable for the EWS segment. With this in mind the Task Force recommends that the

minimum requirements for anEWS unit and the corresponding minimum area should beas below:-

Area of 2 rooms 15.5 m2

Area of Toilet 0.9 m2

Area of Bath 1.2 m2

Area of Kitchen 3.3 m2

Total 20.9 m2

5National Building Code, 2005 Annex C (Clause 12.20), Special Requirements for Low Income Housing in Urban Areas, C-3 General Building Requirements

6As per the National Building Code of India, Annex C (Clause 12.20), C-3 General Building Requirements, C-3.3.4 Balcony, while refereeing to the minimum

dimensions of the Balcony mentions “where provided”, thereby indicating that it is not an essential requirement of a Dwelling Unit/Tenement.



Therefore the minimum Carpet Area of Affordable Housing Dwelling Unit for the EWS category

should be taken as 21 m2, excluding balconies/verandah which is not essential requirement as per the

NBC code.

4.2.2 In absence of the criterion of maximum Carpet Area, the developers may resort to constructing DU with

larger area for EWS which will make them unaffordable for the target group. So, to discourage such a

tendency and to ensure that concessions and subsidies for the EWS segment are well targeted a

maximum Carpet Area also needs to be defined. The recommendations in this regard is summarised in

section 4.2.4.

4.2.3 Moreover, the permissible maximum loading on the Carpet Area to calculate Built-up area and Super

Built-up area needs to be established to make it transparent, especially for the Affordable Housing

dwelling units, as they may receive concessions and subsidies from governments. The BIS Code IS 3861 :

2002, disallows the use of Super Built-up area, but in practise sale price calculations by developers are

based on varying methods of measurement of the Super Built-up area and is therefore directly linked to

the income segment to which the dwelling unit is affordable. The Task Force therefore recommends that

while Developers move to pricing based on built up area or carpet area a maximum ratio has to be

established for Affordable Housing dwelling units which are approved/supported by government. This

will also help make the existing Affordable Housing Policy of some states (e.g Rajasthan) that are using

Super-built up area as their criterion, compatible. Considering general practices, feedback from

developers and local bodies and as per actual calculation of dwelling units of EWS and LIG category, a 25%

loading is recommended as the maximum permissible loading on carpet area to calculate Built-up Area

7and 40% to calculate Super-built-up (Saleable) area .

4.2.4 The carpet area for EWS DUs is defined as 21-27sqm and the range of 28-60 sqm for LIG is quite large,

which could allow developers to avoid constructing DUs with lower area in the range and thereby deprive

certain section of the LIG category to afford houses. So, it is recommended to divide the range as LIG-A for

carpet area between 28-40.9sqm and LIG-B for carpet area between 41-60 sqm. This will also enable

projects to avail the benefits of Income tax and Service tax under Affordable Housing in Partnership

scheme, where the maximum limit of area for LIG dwelling units has been capped at 60 m2 by definition

itself. Ministry of Finance, GoI (Department of Revenue) vide Notification No. 25/2012-Service Tax has

exempted the taxable services by way of construction pertaining to low cost houses under the 'Scheme of

Affordable Housing in Partnership' up to a carpet area of 60 square metres. Likewise, CBDT Notification

7Calculation on the basis of Affordable Housing Policy of Rajasthan which prescribes plans for EWS & LIG DU, are shown in Annex-VI&VII



No. 1/2012 [F. No. 142/24/2011-SO (TPL)] dated 2-1-2012 stipulates rebate for Affordable Housing under

Section 35 AD of Income tax act and as criterion has the maximum limit for EWS dwelling units (in other,

i.e. non metro cities) as 60 Sq m. In summary therefore the Task Force recommendations on the size of

Affordable Housing Dwelling Units are as follows:

· For Economically Weaker Section (EWS): 21- 27sq.m Carpet Area

· For Lower Income Group (LIG-A): 28-40sq.m Carpet Area

· For Upper Lower Income Group (LIG-B): 41-60 sq.m Carpet Area

The Task Force also recommends that these ranges, especially if subsidies are tied to them should have

an admissible marginal variation of 10%. Therefore while the minimum area of the EWS would be fixed

at 21 sq.m and the maximum for LIGB would be fixed at 60 sq.m, the EWS maximum area could be

between 25.2 and 30.8 sq.m and the maximum area for LIG-B could be between 36.9 and 45.1 sq.m.

This would give states the flexibility to decide the final area specifications for projects within their

particular situations.

4.3 Income criteria based on Income ceiling of households:

4.3.1 The existing income ceiling of EWS/LIG households, as notified by MoHUPA in March 2010 was based on

2008 prices. The Task Force understands that there is a regular process that is followed in the Ministry for

revision of the income ceiling of EWS/LIG Households. This Task Force recommends that a regular and

systemized process is instated in the Ministry that meets regularly and monitors the adequacy of the

income ceiling requirements from time to time through commissioning of studies, if required, to track the

progress. It should also aim to develop a transparent indexing method that could adjust these incomes on

a biannual basis.

4.3.2 In regard to the current levels of income ceilings the Task Force undertook a set of indexing exercises

aimed at determining a reasonable increase in the maximum income ceiling for EWS and LIG

household income. The various references and indices used to determine a legitimate

recommendation for the increases were a) increase in the average urban per capita income b) the growth

in minimum wages for non-agricultural workers; c) based on residential price movement trends as

captured by the RESIDEX index maintained by the National Housing Bank; d) based on expenditure

parameters: monthly per capita consumer expenditure (MPCE) as captured by the NSSO; e) based on

general price movement trends (overall demand-supply-price dynamics): consumer price index (CPI)

and/ or consumer food price index (CFPI). Please see Annex VIII for details.



Table 2: Estimation of EWS and LIG Household Incomes, 2012 based on projections of different indices

4.3.3 Based on the results of calculations as presented in the Table-2 above the maximum Household Income

for the EWS and LIG category arerecommended to be Rs. 8,000/- and Rs 16,000/- per month as shown in

Table-3. Since many beneficiaries in these categories do not have regular monthly income, annual income

can also be adopted.

Table 3: Recommended income ceilings

The Task Force also felt that for cities and urban agglomerations with more than a million population state

governments could consider an increase of upto a maximum of 25 percent on the recommended

household income levels mentioned above, if deemed necessary, based on proper justification.

Parameter

Income

Income

Expenditure

Price: residential

Price: General

Price: General

Index/Reference

Category

Growth in Per Capita Income

( PCI)

For EWS

For LIG-A

For LIG-B

Minimum Wages for

non-agricultural workers

Monthly Per Capita

Expenditure (MPCE)

NHB's RESIDEX

Consumer Price Index

Consumer Food Price Index

Maximum EWS HHI, 2012

Existing

7477

UptoRs 5000/-

Rs 5001-10000/-

8000

8500

7619

6796

6762

Maximum LIG HHI, 2012

Recommended

14953

Rs 8000/- per month per

household or Rs 100,000/-

per annum.

Rs 8001- 16000/- per month

per household or Rs. 200,000/-

per annum.

16000

17000

15238

13592

13524



4.4 Affordability, borrowing capacity and house price to income multiples:

4.4.1 Borrowing capacity of beneficiaries is critical for many reasons as it helps define the affability limits of the

EWS/LIG segments. While on one hand, a higher borrowing norm adopted by financial institutions could

lead to faster and quicker penetration of home ownership in the weaker segments, on the other hand it

could also lead to non-repayment and crisis in the housing finance sector. Deepak Parikh Committee in

2008 recommended that 40% of the gross monthly income of the borrower could be a benchmark for the

maximum Equated Monthly Instalments (EMI). The borrowing capacity as per housing finance industry

practice is also restricted to 40 times the gross monthly income of the household. During the consultations

with housing finance companies it emerged that in higher income categories this benchmark was often

breached, and often even higher percentage of gross monthly income could be accepted, however, in the

Affordable Housing segment this ratio was rarely achieved. Other than this input a KPMG report in 2010

has suggested a 5.1 ratio to be the maximum limit of house price to annual income to be followed by

housing finance institutions. This high ratio in today's context seems aspirational. However, this may be

achievable in individual cases where a larger share of the house price is mobilised up front by the

borrower, or there is a capital subsidy scheme by the government, or where there are subsidised interest

rates available for these category of borrowers.

4.4.2 Considering present cost of dwelling units, an affordability gap is calculated on the basis of a generic

model of a housing project that has a mix of EWS, LIG, MIG and HIG category houses. The detailed

assumptions and workings of the model case are presented in Annex-IX. While the Task Force

considered this generic model for its calculations and quantification of recommendations it is well aware

that each project is specific and the costs and affordability of dwelling units will vary based on a variety of

factors. However in an effort to demonstrate the applicability of its approach it presents the analysis of the

Affordability Gap as below in Table 4. It is pertinent to point out here that as presented in Annex-IX, while

the sale price of the EWS/LIG segment used is Rs 1400 per sqft; the overall average of the sale price of the

project considering the MIG and HIG segments too is Rs 1600 per sqft. Please see Annex- IX for full details.



3

4

5

6

7

8

4.1.1

b)

4.1.1

c)

Average Super-built-up

area (loading 40%)33.6 48 71

Average Sale price

Rs 1400/Sqft

(See Annexure-IX)

(Rs 15064/Sqm) in Rs

Monthly Income

upto in Rs

Total Annual Income

in Rs

Affordability limit 4

times Annual Income

in Rs

Affordability gap

(Row 8-4)

7,17,046

12,000

144000

576000

-1,41,046

10,65,025

16,000

192000

768000

-2,97,025

5,06,150

8000

96000

384000

-1,22,150

4.4.3 The Task Force has also calculated the level of subsidies that would need to be provided to be able to meet

the affordability gap between the house price and monthly income in the EWS and LIG A and LIG B

categories. Two types of subsidies i.e. Capital subsidies which will reduce the cost of housing as well as

Interest subsidies which will increase the borrowing capacity could be required to target housing for the

EWS/LIG sector.

The Task Force notes that at current unit prices, EWS and LIG segments cannot afford housing and capital

and/or interest subsidies are required.

Towards this end various efforts are being undertaken by the Central government, or are being planned,

which include, the development of a Credit Risk Guarantee Fund which provides a risk cover for lenders

SL NO.PARA

NO.

14.1 .1

a)

2

CRITERIONS

Carpet area

(Rentable area) in Sqm21 28 4127 40 60

Average Carpet area

considered for

calculation for each

category

EWS LIG-A

34 5124

LIG-B

Table 4: Analysis of Affordability Gap



5. RECOMENDATIONS ON POSSIBLE INCENTIVES FOR THE AFFORDABLE HOUSING SECTOR

5.1 As explained in the earlier in Section 2, the Task Force decided to focus on possible incentives to the

Affordable Housing sector. In reviewing the Affordable Housing sector it has built its recommendations on

a rapid review of State Government policies, practices and projects, supported by SNPUPR and assisted by

Alchemy Consultants; an overview study of international experiences of public investment in housing

undertaken by IDFC and supported by SNPUPR; on detailed discussions with a variety of stakeholders

including Janaadhar, FICCI, NIUA, CREDAI, Value and Budget Housing Corporation, NAREDCO, DBS Builders

among others, and a review by the Monitor Inclusive Markets Group, funded through the SNPUPR project.

5.2 The following sections lists and explains the rationale for a host of incentives that could be provided to

catalyse creation of Affordable Housing for all. The incentives that could be provided are on the Supply

side, i.e. to agencies that are involved in the provision of Affordable Housing, so that they are incentivised

to ramp up the Supply and the Demand side, i.e. to the beneficiaries, to give a boost to their affordability so

that the need for Affordable Housing is translated to an effective demand which could then drive the

market of suppliers of Affordable Housing to produce more such units. Each of the two categories of

Supply side and Demand side are further classified into (a) financial and (b) non-financial incentives.

Financial Incentives are those which involve direct and quantifiable monetary outlay from governments

and non-financial incentives are those which do not need direct monetary outgo from governments.

5.3 The incentives are classified into four categories i.e. (1) Supply side financial incentives; (2) Supply side

non-financial incentives; (3) Demand side financial incentives; and (4) Demand side non-financial

incentives. Most of the incentives are areas where State action is required though a few are in the

Government of India domain.

against defaults in the EWS/LIG category, an interest subsidy scheme for decreasing the interest burden

of borrowers in these categories along with a variety of demand side measures, discussed later in this

report. Alongside this with advancement and reduction in costs of monitoring technologies many

financial institutions are also putting together robust systems for just in time monitoring and keeping a tab

on repayments, which will all go a long way in reducing the risks associated with lending for housing.

With these developments and if such subsidies are available the affordability multiple can be increased

upto 5 for EWS and LIG segments, thus making EWS housing affordable for those within the proposed

income ceilings. The Task Force recommends that, given the host of measures being conceived and

persue, Banks and HFCs should be encouraged to persue the desirable goal of a house price to income

multiple of 5 as against 3 to 4 for Affordable Housing projects.



6. RECOMMENDATIONS : SUPPLY SIDE FINANCIAL INCENTIVES

As mentioned above supply side financial incentives are targeted towards reducing the cost of the

dwelling units through monetary interventions or concessions to housing providers so that they are

incentivised to target and increase the supply of dwelling units in the Affordable Housing segment,

thereby also further bringing down the costs of such dwelling units. A key area of concessions to

Affordable Housing could be through a set of concessions related to taxes and fees. According to a recent

8McKinsey Global Institute study, taxes and fees account for approximately 27% of the final cost of EWS

and LIG houses. Reducing this burden will enable developers to provide cheaper houses for the EWS and

LIG. In a scenario where there are very limited numbers of dwelling units being built in the affordable

segment, these concessions would have a minimal impact on government revenue collections. Supply

side financial incentives also include direct monetary incentives such as capital grants and or viability gap

funding to Affordable Housing providers and targeting priority sector lending to the developers working in

this segment. Many of the recommended incentives would need to work simultaneously to have a

significant impact on the growth in the number of affordable housing units being constructed.

6.1 Development Related Charges

In the Rajasthan Affordable Housing Policy, several incentives are offered to developers like waiver of

External Development Charges (EDC), Building Plan approval fees, Land conversion charges, etc. Given

that there are very few Affordable Housing projects being developed currently, these concessions are

not expected to have a large impact in government revenues but can go a long way in encouraging the

growth in this sector, especially in certain states where the EDCs are quite high.While

these concessions should be prorated to the amount of floor area of Affordable Housing Dwelling Units to

make it targeted, alternate mechanisms will have to be developed by states governments, depending on

the quantum of the revenue gap created on granting these concessions to fund external development

without loading its costs on Affordable Housing projects. The Task Force strongly recommends States to

consider similar concessions in development related charges as best suited to their condition to

encourage Affordable Housing projects.

8The example provided in Exhibit 3.4.9 of the report estimates 2.4% for stamp duty, 12% for development and approval charges, 2.9% VAT, 3% excise duty on

materials, 0.9% service tax and 5.4% income tax (the first three levied by the state government and the last three by the central government).



6.2 Service Tax exemptions

thThe Department of Revenue, Ministry of Finance, GoI vide Notification No. 25/2012 dated 20 June 2012,

Service Tax has exempted the taxable services by way of construction pertaining to low cost houses up to a

carpet area of 60 square metres. This concession would be available to all projects which have been

approved under the 'Scheme of Affordable Housing in Partnership' framed by MoHUPA. This concession

could be up to a level of 3.5 to 4.5 percentage of the project cost and therefore could serve as a major

incentive for affordable housing developments. A separate section later in this Task Force report deals

with recommendations for revamping the AHP scheme so that this concession is able to yield the intended

results.

6.3 Direct Tax rebates for Affordable Housing projects

6.3.1 Considering the importance of housing, the Central Board of Direct Taxes (CBDT) vide its Notification No.

1/2012 [F. No. 142/24/2011-SO (TPL)], dated 2-1-2012 has amended Income tax rules under Section 35 AD

to include Affordable Housing projects w.e.f 1st April, 2011. This allows for investment linked deductions

to businesses, which develop Affordable Housing under a notified scheme. The section 35AD (5) (ac) of the

Income Tax Act, provides that where the specified business is in the nature of developing and building or

housing project under a scheme for slum redevelopment or rehabilitation framed by the central

government or a state government, and which is notified by the Board (CBDT) in accordance with

guidelines which state that the project shall have prior sanction of the competent authority empowered

under the Scheme of Affordable Housing in Partnership framed by the Ministry of Housing and Urban

Poverty Alleviation, Government of India; will be entitled to receive a 100% tax deduction on capital

expenditures.

In housing projects, whether slum redevelopments or affordable housing schemes, the expenses

specifically related to the projects, whether revenue or capital, are debited to the concerned projects and

are deductible from profits of such projects. However, this concession is targeted at equipment used for

construction of the project. Example of equipment and other capital expenditure for which benefit of

35AD could be availed by a developers are 1) shuttering material, 2) concrete mixtures/batching plant, 3)

Bar binding /welding machines, d) transit vehicles e) pumps and motors, f) tower cranesetc.Other than

purchases of these machineries and equipment used in construction projects, there is hardly any capital

expenditure in the context of construction of housing which would be allowable as deduction, as most of

these projects are G+3 or so developments and the equipment currently employed are not of high value

compared to those required for multi-storey developments. The only way this concession could have a

greater significance is in projects that use mass construction technologies, such as in situ industrialised

monolithic construction methods, which have high initial investment on equipment. While such

construction methods has advantages in reducing the time required in construction, in today's



construction methods has advantages in reducing the time required in construction, in today's

environment the use of such technologies, which need investments in terms of equipment and machinery,

lead to an increase in the cost of the housing. Therefore, the immediate impact of the tax deductions will

be minimal and as per some calculations undertaken by the Task Force would be around 1% of project cost.

A following section also recommends means to incentivise industrialised monolithic construction

methods, so that over a period of time they could lead to reduced costs of construction.

However, the income tax deductions could potentially have a significant impact on rental housing

development. In rental housing projects, the units are not sold, but are rented out. The capital

investments in land, infrastructure and building remain in the books of the project company as capital

expenditure. If the deduction under 35AD (5) (ac) are available for the entire capital expenditure in rental

housing projects, the resultant tax benefits would be significant for these projects and will make rental

housing a commercially feasible proposition. Therefore, the Task Force recommends that MoHUPA pursue

this aspect with CBDT to include the entire capital investment in a rental housing as eligible deduction

under 35AD (5) (ac).

The 35 AD section also stipulates that to claim benefits under it, the project, would need to be approved

under the Affordable Housing in Partnership Scheme, and should have a minimum area of one acre with at

least 30% of total allocable area for EWS, 60% for EWS & LIG, 90% for EWS, LIG &MIG and remaining 10%

for other residential or commercial units. The Task Force feels that while the allowance for cross subsidy is

well taken, a prescriptive approach on percentage distribution of area for the various segments could be

too restrictive especially because the concession is minimal. The Task Force therefore recommends that

the 35 AD concession should be available to all projects approved under the Affordable Housing in

Partnership Scheme.

6.3.2 Section 80-IA of the Income Tax Act provides that where the gross total Income of an assessee includes any

profits and gains derived by an undertaking or an enterprise from any of the business referred to in sub-

section (4) then a deduction equal to 100% of the profits and gains derived from such business shall be

allowed for ten consecutive assessment years. Sub-section (4) covers the business of either (i) developing

or (ii) maintaining and operating or (iii) developing, maintaining and operating any infrastructure facility

which fulfils all the conditions as laid down in the said section. The purpose for introducing the tax

benefits was for the reason that industrial modernisation requires a massive expansion and qualitative

improvement in infrastructure and to encourage private sector participation and investment. The

definition of “infrastructure facility” does not however include Housing. Housing Development

companies are engaged in undertaking large scale urban development projects including purchasing raw

land and developing it for the purpose of construction of houses, multi-storied buildings, creation of

infrastructure and social facilities such as laying of roads, systems for water supply, water treatment,



sanitation and sewerage, solid waste treatment and also to create educational, medical and recreational

facilities as an integral part of development of satellite townships. As such, housing projects complements

the growing requirement of housing resulting from the large scale ongoing infrastructure development as

also tend to reduce the pressure on existing cities by providing low priced alternatives and value for money

to the low income housing customers. AHTF therefore recommends that as an attractive incentive to the

developers, Affordable Housing projects may also be included in Sub-section (4) to avail the benefit of

Section 80-IA. Including Affordable Housing, as per the Task Force definition, as ''infrastructure facility''

will also assist the financiers of such projects to be eligible for a host of tax concessions otherwise

currently available to infrastructure projects. This, the task force feels will go a long way in reducing the

cost of the Affordable Housing dwelling units and incentivise the development of such projects.

6.3.3 The objective of the introduction of the benefits under section 80 IB(10) was to build housing for low and

middle income group; the low and middle income group was however not defined. The tax deduction u/s

80IB(10) available to undertakings developing housing projects is for projects approved on or before 31st

day of March, 2008. As the enormous shortage of low cost housing continues, AHTF recommends that

provisions of section 80 IB (10) be made applicable for Affordable Housing projects sanctioned after 31st

March 2008, at least for ten years till 2018 who fulfil the conditions prescribed by the MoHUPA in this

regard and this benefit should be limited to dwelling units that are less than 60 sq.m carpet area in size.

Mechanisms to stop the misuse of this section, which led to its withdrawal could be developed by

MoHUPA in consultation with State Governments. This could act as a significant incentive, while the

Section 80-IA, is being considered for Affordable Housing, and inclusion of Affordable Housing is under

consideration under the definition of ''infrastructure facility'' by the Ministry of Finance, Government of

India.

6.4 Inclusion of Affordable Housing into the Harmonized Master list of Infrastructure sub-sectors of the

Government of India

Housing including, Affordable housing plays an important role in the economic development of the

country. Some key facts about the economic linkages of the housing industry are listed below:

· The Housing sector contributed 5% to the GDP in 2011-12

· Housing sector supports 250 ancillary industries

th th· Construction sector ranks 4 in terms of additional income generated (agriculture is the 6 sector)

· 16% of the Indian work force is engaged in Construction and Transport Sectors.

· Housing is an important contributor to the economy in terms of income and employment

9generation. An IIM Ahmedabad study has pointed out that :

9Impact of Investment in Housing Sector on GDP – IIM Ahmedabad, July 2000.



vEvery rupee invested in housing and construction industry generates Rs. 4.71 as income

multiplier

vEvery employment created in housing sector generates 7.76 employments in

direct and indirect sectors.

vHousing sector ranks third among the fourteen major sectors in terms of total linkage effect

with other sectors of the national economy

It is therefore, clear that the government policies on the housing have a direct impact on the health of the

national economy. The Planning Commission in their Approach paper to the Twelfth Five Year Plan titled,

'Faster, Sustainable and More Inclusive Growth' has recognised the need to address the basic

infrastructure needs of the urban poor who are largely employed in the informal sector and suffer from

multiple deprivations and vulnerabilities that include lack of access to the basic amenities including

decent housing among other things. The paper while discussing the challenges in financing has suggested

a two-pronged strategy to bridge the gap in resources: to create a policy environment for fostering cost-

saving innovations and mobilisation of resources through innovative methods of financing”.

Earlier the National Urban Housing and Habitat Policy (NUHHP) 2007, also expressed the need for active

participation of multiple stakeholders viz. the private sector, the cooperative sector and the industrial

sector for employee housing etc. In order to encourage these non-government stakeholders to come up

with affordable housing projects and also to attract investment in these projects, the Task Force suggests

that in creating an enabling environment,a key pillar would be the financial incentives that accompany the

acknowledgement of the sector to be recognised as an “infrastructure” sector. At present affordable

housing projects do not have the status of infrastructure and therefore promoters of such projects can't

avail tax benefits which are available to other infrastructure projects. Hence, inclusion of affordable

housing projects in the Harmonized Master List of Infrastructure Sub-Sectors is urgently is recommended

by the Task Force. Housing, including Affordable Housing has already been accorded infrastructure status

by the following entities:

· housing projects which are integral components of road projects already qualify for infrastructure

status

· SEBI has included Housing as facilities or services included in the term “Infrastructure Sector”. Under

sub clause (8) in its Schedule X of SEBI (ICDR) Regulations. It defines Housing, including the following:

vUrban and rural housing including public / mass housing, slum rehabilitation etc.



vOther allied activities such as drainage, lighting, laying of roads, sanitation facilities etc.

· The World Bank treats housing, and urban services amongst other sectors as infrastructure.

10· The recent notification under Sec 35 AD also recognizes the need to promote affordable

housing and defines the categories of housing are entitled to be categorized under this head.

Given this background, the AHTF strongly recommends that MoHUPA pursue the Ministry

of Finance to include Affordable Housing projects, in the Harmonized Master List of

Infrastructure Sub-Sectors.

6.5 Direct Capital grant support to Affordable Housing projects

6.5.1 Viability gap funding (VGF) : VGF, has been successfully used to provide financial support in the form of

grants, one time or deferred, to infrastructure projects undertaken through public private partnerships

with a view to make them viable. GoI has established a Viability Gap Fund to aid the PPP infrastructure

projects which face the viability gap due to inherent nature of the project. The AHTF recommends that the

Government of India should consider making Viability Gap Funding available through the established

Government of India facility for Affordable Housing projects too. Also a VGF funding mechanism under the

RAY, could be made available for PPP projects based on appraisal of the finances and economics of each

project. The AHP revision discussed later in this report also presents a considered approach for the use of a

VGF mechanism.

6.6 Developing new avenues for debt financing for Affordable Housing projects

The Task Force recommends that new sources of debt for Affordable Housing projects could go a long way

to increase the funding availability and also the interest costs of funds thereby bringing down the final

landed costs of dwelling units to the buyers. In this regard it recommends that the MoHUPA should persue

a number of possibilities as listed below.

The Task Force also considered the possible applicability of Public Provident Funds for debt to Affordable

Housing projects. Based on the research it undertook it was found that it is not be worthwhile

recommending that PPF fund should invest in affordable housing project since the PPFs trustee mandate is

to invest in 'AAA' rated debt instruments and affordable housing project will not meet credit standards of

"AAA" rated debt instruments. Also by its very intent PPF investment strategy is very conservative.

Recognized Provident Fund, are permitted to invest in debt instruments of upto 10% of the corpus

10Guidelines for notification of affordable housing project as specified business under section 35AD of Income-tax Rules, 1962, in Part II, in sub-part F



institutions in the Private sector companies, provided the debt instrument is rated to be investment grade

by at least two approved rating companies. In view of this an advisory should be issued recommending

that recognized provident fund should be encouraged to invest in affordable home projects that meet the

investment rating norms of such funds.

Life Insurance Companies (other than LIC)are currently in a discussion between IRDA and the Planning

Commission to allow the Insurance Companies to invest in debt instruments of Infrastructure Companies.

Pending the inclusion of Affordable Home Projects in the "infrastructure" category, the Task Force

recommends that MOHUPA should take up with the Ministry of Finance for Life Insurance Companies to

permit them to invest in Affordable Home Project Finance subject to usual commercial considerations.

Project finance also includes total project costs, that will include the cost of land.

LIC and LIC Housing Finance: They have very limited exposure to the real estate sector of approximately

Rs.380 Crore. Additionally through their Housing Finance arm, LIC Housing Finance is expected to allocate

about Rs.650 Crores for project finance for the current year. Amongst the investor, LIC and LIC Housing

Finance have large funding base and have strong capability to evaluate investment in this sector. LICand

HUDCO must also be encouraged to invest in SPVs that undertake Affordable Home Projects subject to

usual commercial terms and conditions. This financing should cover the total cost of project including cost

of land.

Other than this the AHTF recommends that Government should also persue multilateral funding

institutions such as IFC and ADB, to fund Affordable Housing Projects both directly through engagement

with Private Sector Players as well as participation in PPP programs

6.7 Foreign Direct Investment for Affordable Housing

While Foreign Direct Investment is allowed in Housing projects, as documented in RBI/2012-13/15,

ndMaster Circular No. 15/2012-13 dated July 2 2012, the Task Force recommends that special dispensation

should be made for Affordable Housing projects. The critrea for minimum built up area should be brought

down form 50,000/- sq. m to 20,000 sq.m and the minimum investment for joint ventures with Indian

partners be brought down from 5million dollars to 2 million dollars. This is recommended as currently with

such high built up area and financial requirements it both precludes within city locations for housing

projects as well as size and projects in smaller towns, where there are large requirements for Affordable

Housing.



7. RECOMMENDATIONS: SUPPLY SIDE NON FINANCIAL INCENTIVES

There are a number of incentives which do not need direct monetary allocations from governments but could help

promote the Affordable Housing sector. Accelerated growth in the sector can be most effectively created by

lowering barriers for people to produce (supply) goods and services, such as by allowing greater flexibility and

reducing regulation. In this manner supply-side non-financial support from governments will benefit consumers

by increasing the supply of goods and services at lower prices, due to increased supply. Typical policy

recommendations of supply-side are to remove barriers to promote new market players and increase the

availability of the required inputs such as land and labour and simplifying regulation. The section below lists some

of the most important supply siden on financial interventions that could be taken by state governments to give a

boost to the Affordable Housing sector.

7.1 Reduce timelines for approval of Affordable Housing projects

7.1.1 Before construction can begin on an Affordable Housing project, a developer must obtain a series of

permits and approvals from institutions at the local, state, and central level. There is considerable

variation from city to city on the actual time taken to obtain all permits and approvals in practice before

beginning construction. However, all estimates agree that the amount of time taken in obtaining

clearances is significant i.e. 1 to 3 years which adds to the cost of the project.

The AHTF strongly recommends that States should take up measures to establish a Single Window, fast

track approval process.

7.1.2 Fast track approval systems for the various components of project approval already exist in various cities

and states, even if not fully consolidated into a comprehensive system for affordable housing project

approvals. The Affordable Housing policy of Rajasthan ( As explained in Annexure-V as Generalized

Affordable Housing Implementation Framework) has a commitment for a 60-day approval process. This

includes facilitation of land related clearances as well as building permits among other approvals.

7.1.3 The Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation (GHMC) had introduced building permission under `Green

Channel' on October, 2010 to dispose of building applications and also to eliminate malpractice. The Pune

Municipal Corporation has also re-engineered their building permit processes integrating computerized

procedures for submission and verification of documents and drawings through a 'Single Window' system.

Each state government should aim to offer similar fast track automated building plan approval system/

Green Channel that is most appropriate in its context to overcome systemic hurdles in that state; the

objective being to ensure that delayed approvals don't affect the viability or affordability of housing

projects for low income home buyers.



7.1.4 Based on the above successful practices, the following is recommended:

· A simplified set of regulations and procedures for issue of building permits, accompanied by

clearinstructions/ checklists/ guidelines/ manuals on how to submit an application. This may include,

where feasible, empowering empanelled architects (a practice already being followed in a few cities).

This should be further supported by IT-enabled packages for work flow automation and web-enabled

interfaces.

· Creation of an institutional mechanism to facilitate faster conversion of agricultural land to non-

agricultural land within the boundary of the urban planning area where the land is earmarked for

residential use in the master plan.

· State should ensure streamlining of all state and local clearances to facilitate approval within a

maximum of 60 days. States should constitute institutional mechanism to facilitate the first track

approval process.

Streamlining and fast-tracking of central government clearances from Ministry of Environment & Forest,

Archaeological Survey of India (ASI), Airport Authority of India (AAI) and Ministry of Defence needs to be

pursued by the central government as per recommendations being worked out by the Committee on

Streamlining approval process.

7.1.5 As per notification number No. J-11013/56/2004-IA-II (I) dated 14 th September 2006, of the Ministry of

Environment and Forests, all building and construction projects above 20,000 sq.m require prior

environmental clearance. This requirement has often lead to the projects having to wait for upto 24

months to get clearances for construction. In a 2009 draft EIA notification, MoEF,had proposed to extend

the limit of 20,000 sq m to more than 50,000 sq m. However, the MoEF did not persue this

recommendation. The objection was that there were very few projects that had areas above 50,000 sqm

and virtually the entire real estate sector could move out of the pale of the EIA regulations, thus making

the EIA process ineffective for buildings.

However, now it is relevant to review and look into the issue from the perspective of Affordable Housing

projects. There is an urgent need of creating huge affordable housing stock for EWS/LIG segment to cope

up with fast-growing urbanisation and simultaneously to contain slum development in cities. So, large

affordable housing project for EWS/LIG segment should be encouraged to bring immediate growth to this

limping sector. However the bottleneck is the 20,000 sq meter built-up area threshold prescribed by

M/oEF which mandates that all project proposals above 20,000 sq meters go through the process of MoEF

clearance. It is essential for the affordable housing projects to make it affordable for the target group and

long idle period for project clearances make them quite unviable due to cost escalation with time.



The Task Force recommends that affordable housing projects should have a special dispensation in getting

clearances from the Ministry of Environment & Forest and the threshold for such projects should be

increased from 20,000 Sq. meters to 50,000 square meters.

7.2 Inventory of state/ city land holdings and increasing land supply for Affordable Housing

7.2.1 One of the central issues preventing the creation of affordable housing in the most populated cities

especially Tier 1 cities is that land is too expensive. In most cities, the cost of land typically constitutes

about 20-30% of the final cost of an affordable housing project. In exceptional cases such as Mumbai, this

percentage can be as high as 90%, pushing most green field Affordable Housing projects to the periphery

of the city. However, Government agencies often own significant amounts of land near the city centers.

This land is often well connected to infrastructure but under used. The Task Force therefore recommends

that:

· State and cities shall make a full inventory of their land holdings in cities

· Constitute a land bank and prepare an asset management plan for better managing the available

land and targeting it supply to create Affordable Housing Dwelling Units

7.2.2 The State action as mentioned above would allow state/local governments to strategically release urban

land for housing the urban poor through specially designed mechanisms, while involving State Housing

Boards, the Private sector through specifically crafted PPP mechanisms, the cooperative sector as well as

the not for profit sector as required. Three models, which have innovated in this regard and are being

implemented by various States are presented below:

· To utilize existing land bank for housing by Govt. In partnership with private developers e.g. Model

No.4 of Affordable Housing Policy of Govt. Rajasthan (Box-V)

To create land bank for housing by owners of private land: Vijaywada Model in Andhra Pradesh for housing

on sharing basis under PPP, the illustration of which may be seen in ( Box VI).

Box V: Model-4, Rajasthan

Private developers on Government land

(For Rental housing or outright sale basis)

·Earmarked Government land to be offered free of cost to the developer to be selected through an open bidding process.

·Developers offering maximum number of EWS/LIG DUs (Built up, G + 2/ G + 3 formats) free of cost to the ULB, would be awarded the

project. At least 50% houses should be of EWS category.

·Developers shall be free to use the remaining land as per his choice for residential purpose with 10% for commercial use.



Box VI: Vijayawada land sharing Model under PPP

Vijayawada (60:40) model is an example of land assembly by a negotiated settlement process and consent awarded by the District Collector

under sections 31(3) and 31(4) of Land Acquisition Act or eas it another section

The salient features of this model:

·40% of the total land area can be taken possession of by the Revenue Department

·60% portion of land shall be given to all land holders after the land use conversion, approval of layout by the UDA and Government and

development of infrastructure with funds from Social Welfare Department.

·A scheme on the basis of the above formulae was prepared for acquisition of 226.54 acre of land under 60:40 sharing pattern and

submitted to the government by the Collector Krishna District under section 31(3) of LAA.

·After success of the Phase 1 of this project, local farmers, themselves, came forward and expressed their willingness to pool 798.27 acre

land under 60:40 sharing basis. A similar process was also followed in Phase II.

Benefits of this Model :

§Financially this model is beneficial.

§The method is participatory as the conditions of land sharing are fixed through negotiations between the farmers (land owners) and the

representatives of the government.

§The process of land assembly is less time consuming as there are generally no objections from farmers, as indicated by the second phase

of land assembly at Vijayawada, and hence no resistance, litigations or legal stay orders causing delays.

Source: Innovative Land Sharing Model (60:40 basis) under Public Private Partnership a case study of Vijayawada City, Ministry of Housing and

Urban Poverty Alleviation (MoHUPA), November, 2011. Unpublished

·Magarpatta Model in Maharashtra is another successful model which aims at innovatively using

land owned by farmers themselves. See Box VII for details.

·To augment land by developing infrastructure through private investment. The Hyderabad model

may be seen in Box-IX and Gujarat model may be seen in Box-VIII.

Box VII :Magarpatta Model- Farmers as Developers

In this model the land of over 400 acres in Magarpatta City, (7 kms away from Pune railway station) owned by over 120 families consisting of around

800 beneficiaries was pooled in for development of an innovative and integrated township. The idea was to create a self-contained township based

on 'walk to work, walk to school' principle.

The salient features of this model are:

·Landowners are percentage shareholders in the company formed by them and entitled to a share in the profits

·Landowners are also entitled to receive a percentage of sale-proceeds in proportion to their land-holdings as and when sales accrue,

thereby getting benefit of escalating prices.

·Landowner is not displaced from their ancestral land, instead land is used for empowering the land owner

·Landowners have the opportunity to turn into entrepreneurs thereby creating an employment for themselves and to others.



BOX IX

GUJARAT MODEL

1. Broadly there are four initiatives in Gujarat to deal with affordable housing. The first is under the Regulations for Rehabil itation and

Redevelopment of the Slums, 2010. It is aimed at rehabilitation of slums. Similar to the SRA model of Mumbai, the public sector does

not build or finance anything, its only involvement is through regulations and incentives such as additional FSI. The developer develops

projects on a slum which includes providing housing at no cost to the existing slum dwellers. For the scheme to be approved for construction a

society of individual slum dwellers must be formed and 75% of these individuals must agree to the scheme. This scheme is only viable where

the land value is very high. The scheme applies to existing slums.

2. The second scheme is under the Regulations for Residential Townships Act, 2009. It relates to private developers who want to develop

residential townships. Private developers must purchase at least 40 hectares of land (in cases where Urban Development Authorities exist) or

20 hectares of land (in other relevant authority areas).10% of the area must be reserved for housing for the Economically Weaker Section.

3. The third scheme is operated under the town planning schemes, where every owner within specific boundaries must provide a certain

percentage (30-40%) of the land to government. Government pays market rate for the land, provides all the infrastructure and the value of

the owner's land tends to go up subsequently as a result. This increases the efficiency of the plot by 10-15%. The goal of this scheme is to

provide land for the future urban development and housing. 10 percent of the land is reserved for Affordable Housing.

4. The fourth scheme is the Urban Land Ceiling and Regulation Act. The Gujarat government has repealed the Urban Land Ceiling and

Regulation Act and transferred surplus land to urban local bodies at nominal rates for projects focused on EWS/LIG housing. The

government has also come out with special provisions for development of low cost housing, where the owner/authorised developer will

provide a minimum built up area of 20sq m subject to a minimum carpet area of 14 sq m to slum dwellers along with water supply, drainage

and electricity.

Box VIII:

Hyderabad Model

·The Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation (GHMC) has applied Tax increment financing (TIF) to take up capital improvements in

peripheral localities lacking roads, underground drains and water supply, parks and street lights.

·TIF is an unexplored financing source in which money is borrowed now to pay for immediate infrastructure requirements and paid

over a time period as the facility is used.

·The TIF uses incremental increase in tax revenue caused by development to finance infrastructure improvements. The rationale is that

as property values in TIF areas rise and property tax revenues increase, the urban local bodies (ULB) use the growth in property tax

revenues to pay off the initial and ongoing economic development expenditures.

·The strategy was to fund capital improvements by accessing bank loans to be repaid by the households, as an annual tax increment,

getting immediate benefits due to the implementation of the TIF programme in select neighbourhoods.

·A total approach was followed to develop complete hard infrastructure in all peripheral neighbourhoods by providing water supply,

underground drainage, roads, storm water drains and street lights.

·Moreover, neighbourhood residents had to contribute 30% of the local water project cost if internal distribution lines had to be laid.

Nearly 800 neighbourhoods were identified based on the existing infrastructure gaps in the peripheral neighbourhoods.

·First, the hard infrastructure requirements were evaluated through a rational-technical survey by engineers. Second, the survey findings

were confirmed by the area sabhas, ward committees and the local elected representatives and a

'people's plan' prepared.

·Finally, operational plans were divided into stages, and during the first phase, the following type of ighbourhoods were selected: those

already having water supply and drainage network but no roads; those not having water supply or drains, and those requiring only

recreational facilities, such as parks and playfields.

Source: Economic Times, published on 12th April, 2012, Author: Sameer Sharma, Former, Municipal Commissioner, GHMC.



7.3 Increasing Land availability for Affordable Housing Projects

Availability of developed land, which is land with infrastructure, at a low cost is an important requirement

for the promotion of Affordable Housing. As part of the RAY reforms the MoHUPA has circulated a draft of

the “Model Provision for Amendment to the Respective Municipal Act(s)/Town Planning Act/Urban

Development Act/ Preparation of new legislation, etc. as applicable, for reservation of Land for Housing to

Economically Weaker Sections (EWS) and Low Income Groups (LIG)” aimed at the reservation of 20 % of

developed land (10 % of Gross land) for plotted housing development schemes for the urban poor. The

Task Force has noticed that there is considerable resistance to the implementation of this reform, which

was initiated in the JNNURM program and also adopted under the RAY program. This is evident that since

the start of JNNURM in 2005 a number of States such as Kerala and Jharkhand among a few others are yet

to implement it. A few states have tried to implement it they have received limited success, such as Delhi,

Gujarat, Himachal Pradesh, Madhya Pradesh, Orissa, Puducherry, Tamil Nadu and Uttrakhand have

reserved lower percentages, than that specified. The Task Force is of the opinion that as even with the

support of a set of incentives this specified reservation would be too high and beyond the cross subsidy

capacity of both the developers/projects as well as the buyers.

Other than the cross subsidy constraint, the Task Force also looked into the basis of the high

reservation level of 20 percent of developed land as set out in the reform provision. It was found that

the reservation level also quoted in the National Housing and Habitat Policy 2007, has emerged due to

the felt need for provision of land and housing to the urban poor living in slums. While the first full

survey of slum dwellers is currently being undertaken, as a guesstimate based on the average

percentage of the slum population in various larger cities it is believed that the slum population is

11between 20-25 percent of the urban population, hence this level of reservation would be necessary to

provide land and housing to the slum dwellers.

11The Task Force making use of recent data and plans generated by cities evaluated three draft Slum Free

City Plans (SFCPoAs) to estimate a) the percentage of slum areas to the net residential area of the city and

b) the percentage of the built up area of the slums in the city to the total built-up area of the residential

area in the city, to separately estimate the level of reservation required to generate the land to house slum

dwellers. In the three cases studied the percentage of slums to the net residential area of the city emerged

to be between the range of 9-16 percentage; and the percentage of built up area of the slums to the built

up area of the entire city worked out to be between 8.4-14.6 percentage. Based on realistic scenario

11The 2001 Census puts the slum population at 42.6 million which forms 15 per cent of the country's total urban population and 23.1 per cent of population of

cities and towns reporting slums. In 2001 the Census of India, collected the slum population data from cities and towns having population of 50,000 and more

in 1991. There were a total of 743 cities and towns in that category, of which 640 reported slums.



7.4 Increasing FSI and providing TDR facilities

To ensure adequate provision of Affordable Housing, increasing FSI/FAR and providing Transferable

Development Rights (TDR) has emerged as a strategy which is gaining momentum in the country

particularly in cities where land is scarce and expensive. The Task Force recommends that this approach is

used in two situations, as follows. FirstlyFAR/FSI should be increased in all Affordable Housing projects

where the FSI/FAR is lower than 1.75 to allow for increased cross subsidy possibility to give a boost to the

viability of the projects. Secondly in situations where under the Land reservation reform condition under

the RAY Scheme where a portion of the land/FAR is handed over to government additional /compensatory

FSI at least equal to the FSI actually consumed for EWS/LIG segment in an automatic route(double of the

normal FSI, in the case of Rajasthan or compensatory FSI as in Assam, i.e. equal to the FSI consumed for

EWS/LIG segment) can be offered to the developer. This additional FSI, if unutilized on the same project

land, could be given in the form of TDR, through a zonal planning system, to be used in other

parts of the town as per norms and guidelines fixed by the State government in this regard.Inboth the

situations states and ULBs may be required to also increase the applicable density levels. Box X and Box XI

cite examples

provided by these analysis, and with a view to also cover the backlog of housing, and given that new

housing projects are mainly coming up as Group Housing Schemes and not as plotted developments, the

Task Force would like to recommend that the reservation requirement under the RAY programme should

be at least 15%-20%,of developed land (8-10% of raw land) or at least 35% of the dwelling units in each

project with a plot size of a minimum one hectare. The 35% of the DUs, reserved at the project level,

should be for EWS and LIG Category with at least 25% of these DUs are of the EWS category.

Simultaneously with this reservation the State governments should also provide compensatory FSI as

explained in a separate section. The Task Force feels that this will be better received by the industry and

will also increase the number of dwelling units for the target categories. This will create more dwelling

units in the states and is a higher requirement than the 25% as provided in the AHP Scheme, currently.



Box XI: Maharashtra – Reservation and Use of FSI for Slum development

THE MAHARASHTRA REGIONAL AND TOWN PLANNING ACT, 1966 (As Modified up to the 31st December 2005): While this Act does not explicitly

mention the urban poor / slum dwellers, it deals with a number of planning issues related to the allocation and use of land for development that

could affect them. Some key provisions under the Act are as follows:

Section 125 of this Act states that: “Any land required, reserved or designated in a Regional Plan, a Development or any other plan or town planning

scheme, for a public purpose or purposes including plans for any area of comprehensive development or for any new town shall be deemed to be

land needed for a public purpose within the meaning of the Land Acquisition Act 1894.”

Under section 37 (1) of the said act the government issued directions to all municipal corporation /councils to initiate modification in their

sanctioned DCRs (development control regulations) to compulsorily reserve 10% land and /or tenements for EWS & LIG housing.

SLUM REHABILITATION AUTHORITY (SRA): Maharashtra has constituted the Slum Rehabilitation Authority (SRA) under the Maharashtra Slum Areas

Act, 1971 for the purpose of slum rehabilitation. The SRA implements schemes that focus on redevelopment as well as rehabilitation of slum-

dwellers.

The salient features of the Slum Rehabilitation Scheme (SRS) are:

(i) Tenement density is 500 tenements per net hectare;

(ii) FSI in the form of prescribed rehabilitation to sale ratio for cities is provided as 1.0. For in-situ development, consumption of FSI is

restricted up to 2.5;

(iii) Transfer Development Rights (TDR) is available against the free-sale component which is approved by the SRA.

Box X: Creation of Additional Land for Slum Housing using FSI

Slum Redevelopment: Gujarat Government has a scheme to re organize the slum area by creating additional land. This can be achieved through

incentives of additional FSI, involving PPPas well as vertical development. The slum redevelopment scheme is a unique way to improve the quality

of life. The redevelopment program of such slum areas will be carried out in such a way that, at the initial stage the beneficiaries will be temporarily

accommodated at transit camp and the land vacated will be partly utilized for the residential purpose low rise buildings with additional FSI. The

balance land available can be developed or sold for commercial purposes.

To enable and incentivize the efforts for the redevelopment / rehabilitation programs for the existing slums in Surat, Government of Gujarat has

made amendments to the building byelaws, namely the General Development Control Regulations (G.D.C.R.) of the Surat Urban Development

Authority vide. the notification no. GHN/246 of 2007/DVP-1405-4305-L, dated 14th September 2007, the incentive of additional FSI of 50% of the

FSI consumed in slum redevelopment is offered to the land owner/developer for the development on the remaining land.



7.5 Revision of the Building Codes

Feedback from developers as well as local bodies and state para-statals working in Affordable Housing

indicates that many standards and norms, including space standards as well as building performance

standards for housing play a significant role in increasing the cost of housing. Each state and urban local

body has a different set of standards and norms, which often are not tuned to the requirements of

Affordable Housing.

7.5.1 Revision in Planning and Development Norms

As illustrated in Annex-IX, as per the studies undertaken as part of this report adoption of inclusive zoning

practices as well as optimization of various development norms may be considered by state governments

for Affordable Housing. A few of the most important initiatives state governments could take are:

· Develop zones for EWS/LIG/MIG in the Master plan

· States may have liberal development norms for Affordable Housing as follows:-

· FAR : 1.75 (Minimum)

· Ground Coverage: 50% (Maximum)

· Density: 350 DUs/Hectare (Minimum)

· Parking norms need to be reduced/rationalized for affordable housing projects. The NBC special

guideline Annexure-C covers the planning and general building requirements of low cost housing,sets

up no special parking norms for EWS/LIG or Low cost housing. This along with the fact that similar

lacunae is found in building regulations in most states, makes the developers of low cost housing

follow the parking norms of a regular group housing project which is far above the requirement as per

the beneficiaries, raising the overall cost of each dwelling unit.

The dwellers of an affordable housing project especially the EWS category may not need a car. A

parking space for two wheelers and bicycles should be sufficient for EWS and some proportion of

LIG. The requirement is one car parking space for every two flats upto 90 m2 floor area and the

minimum parking space prescribed is 3 m x 6 m = 18 sqm. The average floor area of a EWS DU is just

30 sq.m (24 sq.m carpet area) and hence the requirement norms of parking space for EWS should not

be more than 1/3rd of general norms. Hence the AHTF recommends that a separate norm for parking

should be prescribed by NBC for low cost housing and the States should consider having separate

parking norms as well.



7.5.2 The “Part III, Annexure C of the National Building Code of India” lays out the norms for low cost

housing. This code focuses a great deal on cluster development and the coverage of group housing needs

updating. The Task Force recommends that the MOHUPA should carry out a separate study on

building standards and norms to revise the provisions of “Part III, Annexure C of the National Building

Code of India” with respect to Affordable Housing, especially for group housing society projects which

are not included in the code at present. Also, through such an effort the Government of India should

also put in efforts towards standardisation of norms and building codes across different regions of the

country which could help in development and use of mass housing construction technologies. These

technologies if used at scale could reduce the time required in construction and would finally reduce

the costs of dwelling units. Some examples of technological innovations and standardization at

structural level could be a) Structural Uniform Criteria for symmetrical structures b) Load Bearing

Monolithic structures c) Low Rise buildings with monolithic structures; d) Mat Foundations and e) Soil

Improvement technologies.

7.6 Policy support for the promotion of mass housing construction technologies

Mass industrial production methods like prefabrication technology or any innovative appropriate

technology which could enhance speed and quality of construction could go a long way to reduce costs of

construction.

Building Materials & Technology Promotion Council (BMTPC) has been working towards operationalising a

comprehensive and integrated approach for promotion of cost-effective, environment-friendly & energy-

efficient innovative building materials and construction technologies for housing in urban and rural areas

including disaster resistant practices. BMTPC has been successfully facilitating the propagation of these

technologies from lab to land. The technologies promoted by BMTPC were supported by up scaling,

mechanization, standardization, dissemination, capacity building and field level application. The efforts of

BMTPC are concentrated for creating enabling environment as regards affordable housing and sustainable

development.

8. RECOMMENDATIONS FOR DEMAND SIDE FINANCIAL INCENTIVES

A host of demand side financial measures could also boost the Affordable Housing Sector and the AHTF

recommends that simultaneous action in this regard could go a long way to strengthen the sector. Demand side

financial incentives are prevalent in the middle and higher income segments with income tax rebates being made

available by the Government of India to the home buyers. In the Affordable Housing segment the Interest Subsidy

for the Urban Poor (ISHUP) is a direct interest rate subsidy to low income households.



8.1 Interest Subsidy

8.1.1 Government of India has launched the Interest Subsidy Scheme for Housing the Urban Poor (ISHUP) as a

key policy instrument for channelizing the flow of credit to address the housing needs of the EWS/LIG

segments in urban areas. This scheme was a pioneering attempt towards enabling the weaker sections in

the urban areas to gain access to formal sector credit, at affordable cost through the use of the banking

industry in the country. The scheme was launched in 2008 and provided for a 5 per cent interest subsidy

upto a loan of Rs 1 lakh to LIG and EWS loan borrowers. The Task Force recommends that the ISHUP

scheme should be restructured to adopt the EWS/LIG definitions as mentioned in earlier in this report and

the restrictive size of the loan against which the 5% interest subsidy is admissible should be increased to at

least Rs 5 lakhs instead of 1 lakh, and loans upto Rs 8 lakhs should be eligible.

8.1.2 A moratorium for 3 years in payment of EMI may be also be considered to relieve the EWS/LIG housing

buyers from the burden of paying EMI and house rent simultaneously while the house is under

construction. Lending banks may be asked to explore the possibility of deferred payment of EMI and a

scheme to this effect either as a component of ISHUP or in any other arrangement should be created.

8.2 Appropriate reduction of stamp duty for registration of property in Affordable Housing projects: Most

states have stamp duties for registration of property which vary from 5% to 15% of the purchase price of

the property. The checklist for mandatory reforms under the JNNURM program also include a “Resolution

by Government expressing commitment to reduce Stamp Duty to 5% (or less than 5% if the state so

desires) within Mission period”. There is a strong case for reducing this further specifically for Affordable

Housing dwelling units.

Stamp duty in other countries typically begins at 0% for low-value properties and gradually reaches 3% for

high-value properties. After considering all the practices being followed the AHTF recommends that

States should adopt a policy of having nominal Stamp duty of Rs 100/- for EWS and LIG category and 5% for

higher categories. Rajasthan, Madhya Pradesh and Uttar Pradesh have already implemented a policy of

Rs. 100 as stamp duty for the EWS housing. The principle effect of this lower stamp duty will be to reduce

the cost of the property and therefore, reduction in the final cost to the beneficiary and the increase in

provision of Affordable Housing units.



8.3 Priority Sector Lending for Affordable Housing Projects:

Priority sector lending has been an institutional mechanism since late 1960s for allocating credit to sectors

that have high potential for generating employment and improving livelihood. The outcome has been

quite encouraging so far.

The Reserve Bank of India has classified the following sectors as eligible for consideration under priority

sector: (i) Agriculture; (ii) Micro and Small Enterprises; (iii) Education; (iv) Housing; (v) Export Credit; (vi)

Others – such as overdrafts against 'no-frills' accounts, loans to distressed persons, etc. Banks are directed

by the Reserve Bank to target 40% of their advances (Adjusted Net Bank Credit-ANBC) to these sectors as

per norms issued by it from time to time.

The Union Budget 1999-00 expressed the intent to target 3% of incremental deposits of Banks as loans to

the housing sector. Though this has not been formalised as a sub-target in priority sector lending, credit to

housing in Gross Bank credit has gone up from 3% (Rs 11,404 crs) in 1999 to 9.28% (Rs 3,46,110 crs) in

stMarch 2011 but witnessed decline to 8.88% (Rs.3,88,020 crs) as on 31 March 2012.

As per the RBI notification of July 20th, 2012 numbered RBI/2012-13/138, RPCD.CO.Plan.BC

13/04.09.01/2012-13, the eligibility of housing loans under priority sector lending has been laid out to be

as follows:

“(i) Loans to individuals up to Rs 25 lakh in metropolitan centres with population above ten

lakh and Rs 15 lakh in other centres for purchase/construction of a dwelling unit per

family excluding loans sanctioned to bank's own employees.

(ii) Loans for repairs to the damaged dwelling units of families up to Rs 2 lakh in rural and

semi- urban areas and up to Rs 5 lakh in urban and metropolitan areas.

(iii) Bank loans to any governmental agency for construction of dwelling units or for slum

clearance and rehabilitation of slum dwellers subject to a ceiling of Rs 5 lakh per dwelling

unit.

(iv) The loans sanctioned by banks for housing projects exclusively for the purpose of

construction of houses only to economically weaker sections and low income groups, the

total cost of which do not exceed Rs 5 lakh per dwelling unit. For the purpose of

identifying the economically weaker sections and low income groups, the family income

limit of Rs 1,20,000 per annum, irrespective of the location, is prescribed”.

The fourth clause has been added to give an impetus for the EWS/LIG segment housing and was not in the

earlier notification dated July 1, 2011 with the number RBI/2011-12/107, RPCD.CO.Plan.BC

10/04.09.01/2011-12. The following Table-5 summarises the total banking sector credit in India and the

credit to the housing sector.



Table 5: Total banking sector credit to the housing sector

All values in Rs. Crores

As may be noted, although Government of India was targeting a share of 3% of deposits on an incremental

basis, housing loans have reached a share of about 9% on outstanding loan basis within a span of 12 years.

stAs on 31 March 2012, the housing loans in the priority sector category were Rs. 2,52,460 crore as against

stRs 2,30,690 crores as on 31 March 2011 accounting for 6.4% and 7.2% of the adjusted net bank credit

respectively. Thus, housing loans contributed significantly in the achievement of priority sector lending

targets of 40% for scheduled commercial banks.

The Table-6 below summarises the trend in total housing loans disbursements and loans outstanding by

Public Sector Banks viz-a-viz, disbursement/outstanding of housing loans in the loan slab upto Rs. 5 lakhs

within the housing loan category.

Outstanding Housing Loans

Public Sector Banks

HFCs

Private Sector Banks

Total

Total Gross Bank Credit

Housing loans from banks/ bank credit

Category Share

Public Sector Banks

HFCs

Private Sector Banks

2009-10

202356

153188

98573

454117

3088570

9.75%

44.6%

33.7%

21.7%

2010-11

239079

186348

107031

532458

3731470

9.28%

44.9%

35.0%

20.1%

2011-12

273012

194360

115008

582380

4371350

8.88%

46.9%

33.4%

19.7%

Source: Reports of RBI and NHB



Total Housing Loans

Housing Loans upto Rs 5 Lakhs

as a % of total Housing Loans

HFCs

Total Housing Loans



Total of Public Sector Banks and

HFCs

Total Housing Loans



71875

15031

20.9%

45569

4439

9.7%

117444

19470

16.6%

202356

52946

26.2%

130218

24085

18.5%

332574

77031

23.2%

73831

10825

14.7%

68228

2288

3.4%

142059

13113

9.2%

75171

17096

22.7%

55200

4929

8.9%

130371

22025

16.9%

239079

57749

24.2%

147431

23903

16.2%

386510

81652

21.1%

273012

45277

16.6%

194360

18067

9.3%

467372

63344

13.6%

Table 6: Trends in Housing loan disbursements

All values in Rs. Crores

Public Sector Banks

Public Sector Banks

2009-10

O/S as on

31.3.2010Disbursed

2010-11

O/S as on

31.3.2011Disbursed

2011-12

O/S as on

31.3.2012Disbursed

Source: Data from PSBs and HFCs

Data regarding the size-wise break-up of housing loans by private banks and foreign banks is not available.

From the above table, it may be observed that of the total housing loans disbursed by public sector banks

in 2010-11, 22.7% were disbursed in the loan category of housing loans upto Rs. 5 lakh which has declined

to 14.7% in the year 2011-12. Similarly, in case of HFCs, this percentage has also registered decline from

8.9% in 2010-11 to 3.4% in 2011-12.

In view of the above, outstanding housing loans upto Rs 5 lakhs which constituted 24.2% of the totalst st

outstanding housing loans of public sector banks as on 31 March 2011 has declined to 16.6% as on 31

March 2012. Similar trend was observed in case of HFCs during this period registering decline from 16.2%st st

as on 31 March 2011 to 9.3% as on 31 March 2012. It may, therefore, be reasonably concluded that the

share may even be lower for foreign banks and private sector banks.

Moreover, the above classification is only based on the size of the loan; the income levels of the borrowers

are not known. There is no formal data available at the national level to show how much of these small

ticket loans actually went to the EWS/LIG category. Smaller size loans to economically well off sections are

also included in the above. Therefore, the actual flow of credit to the EWS/LIG section is unknown at this

point of time. It may also be noted that the above information is on an all India basis and includes housing

loans in rural areas also, which is likely to consume smaller size loans. Therefore, EWS/ LIG housing in the

urban sector receives a much lesser share than the calculations shown above.



The Task Force notes that despite significant overall growth of institutional credit in the housing sector, the

Government priority of making housing credit available to the economically weaker sections remains

unfulfilled. The Task Force is of the opinion that a re-look is necessary given the incentives and

programmes that are being launched by the Government of India. These initiatives will increase the

demand for loans from the EWS/LIG segment and will make the loans more creditworthy due to

mechanisms such as Credit Risk Guarantee Fund, upfront capital subsidy of AHP which increases the

collateral multiple etc. Generation of demand from this segment needs to be matched with the readiness

of the banking system to extend credit to these segments. Keeping these issues in view the Task Force

makes the following recommendations:

8.3.1 At present, the housing sector loans are far in excess of the Government of India's original target of 3% of

incremental deposits. Therefore it may be concluded that directed lending may no longer be necessary to

make credit available to the housing sector as a whole. However, specific shortfalls, such as credit

availability to the EWS/LIG categories need to be addressed effectively by specific assignment of targets.

Presently, there is no sub target for the housing sector loans within priority sector lending targets, for

EWS/LIG segments. The Task Force therefore recommends that a separate sub target for loans to EWS/ LIG

segment be created. The Credit Risk Guarantee Fund has been created with a corpus of Rs 1000 crores

already. This Fund itself is expected to secure loans worth Rs 60,000 crores, assuming non performing

loans at 5% and loan loss at 33.33%. Even with a conservative estimate of off-take from this fund over the

next five years, an annual incremental demand of Rs 12,000 crores from the EWS/LIG segment could be

generated and planned for. Assuming an incremental adjusted net bank credit of Rs 6,00,000 crores per

annum, an allocation of 2% would be required to meet the incremental demand generated from the

Credit Risk Guarantee Fund. Additional demand may be generated due to other incentives being planned

by the Ministry, such as enhanced ISHUP and AHP subsidy. Therefore, the Task Force recommends the

creation of a sub target of 3% of the total loans and advances of the banks/gross bank credit for the

thpurpose of housing loans to EWS/LIG segments to be achieved by the end of the 12 Five Year Plan period

i.e. 2017.

stAs on 31 March 2012, the gross bank credit of the banks is Rs. 43,71,350 crores and the outstanding

housing loans in the category of loans upto Rs. 5 lakh is Rs.45,277 crores. By fixing a sub-target of 3% of the

GBC, the housing loans in the category of loans upto Rs. 5 lakh that could be generated would work out to

Rs.1,31,140 crores. As the outstanding loans in this loan size group is already at Rs. 45,277 crores, an

additional institutional credit to EWS/LIG segments for loans upto Rs. 5 lakhs, would be of the order of

Rs.85,863 crores. The Task Force further notes that the gross bank credit of banks has been growing by

about Rs.5,00,000-6,00,000 crores on year on year basis. Therefore, by setting up a target of 3% of GBC, it

will further create additional loans upto Rs. 5 lakhs to EWS/LIG segments to the tune of about Rs.15,000 –

18,000 crore on year on year basis. As a result of this, the additional housing loans upto Rs. 5 lakhs to the

thEWS/LIG segments that could be generated during the 12 Five Year Plan Period (2012-17) would be in the



range of Rs.1,00,860 –Rs.1,03,860 crores i.e. Rs.20,170- Rs.20,770 crores on annual/yearly basis. The

Task Force further notes that the public sector banks alone have disbursed Rs 17,096 crores of housing

loans with size less than Rs 5 lakhs per loan in the year 2010-11 which has come down to Rs.10, 825 crores

in the year 2011-12. In the event that EWS/LIG loans are a significant part of this disbursement, banks may

be able to accommodate these loans in the 3% sub-target readily. If it is not so, then it indicates lack of

credit flow to the EWS/LIG segment, thus strengthening the justification for creating a sub-target enabling

directed lending to focus on the segment that needs it the most.

8.3.2 The RBI guidelines on priority sector lending have a separate category of loans for weaker sections and a

sub-target of 10% for these loans. Loans to beneficiaries under the National Rural Livelihood Mission and

the Swarna Jayanti Shahari Rozgar Yojana (SJSRY) are eligible under advances to weaker sections category .

The Task Force that the RBI committee to re-examine priority sector lending framework (Mr. M.V. Nair

Committee) has recommended that “In order to encourage construction of dwelling units for EWS and

LIG, housing loans granted to these individuals will also qualify under weaker sections.” This

recommendation is yet to be operationalized. In line with the recommendations of the Committee, the

Task Force recommends that housing loans to borrowers in the EWS/LIG segments should also be

considered on the lines of NRLM and SJSRY and should be included in the category of advances to weaker

sections and should be made eligible to meet the sub-target of 10% for weaker sections. If the off-take

under the EWS/LIG category loans grows significantly, the overall limit for weaker section loans may also

be raised further by 2% at a later point of time provided the additional 2% is only for housing loans for

EWS/LIG segments.

8.3.3 The priority sector lending norms cover only scheduled commercial banks. Housing Finance Companies

(HFCs) had a market share of 33.4% in 2011-12 and this share has been growing gradually. The Task Force

notes that of the total housing loans disbursed by HFCs in the year 2011-12, the share of loans disbursed in

the loan slab of size upto Rs. 5 lakhs is only 3.4% whereas the corresponding figure for public sector banks

is 16.6%. Thus, the flow of credit from housing finance companies is lesser than that of commercial banks,

and that the flow to EWS/LIG categories may be even lesser. The Task Force notes that NHB has recently

introduced a special scheme of refinance for loans upto Rs. 5 lakhs for banks and HFCs focusing on

increasing credit flow to EWS/LIG segments. The Task Force, therefore recommends that the National

Housing Bank may further develop suitable mechanism (in terms of refinance schemes, promotional and

developmental endeavours etc.) to encourage increased flow of loans from housing finance companies to

EWS/LIG segments either through a priority sector lending framework or other appropriate measures.

8.3.4 The Task Force recommends that in a situation where banks are unable to achieve this sub-target for

EWS/LIG segments, the banks may be permitted to make available undisbursed amounts to a Fund to be

created for “EWS/LIG Urban Housing and Infrastructure Fund” on the lines of Rural Infrastructure



Development Fund (RIDF). This may be utilised for financing for housing to EWS/LIG through

NHB/HUDCO. The rate of interest available for banks on their contribution to this fund may be fixed in a

manner similar to that of RIDF. This will incentivise the growth of this segment.

8.3.5 As per the existing RBI guidelines on Priority Sector lending, the loans sanctioned by banks for housing

projects exclusively for the purpose of construction of houses to economically weaker sections and low

income groups, the total cost of which do not exceed Rs 5 lakh per dwelling unit, are considered as part of

the Bank's Priority Sector lending.

The Task Force notes that the domestic construction industry has been jostling with steep and steady rise

in prices of land, cement, steel rods, bricks and other input material, which have risen significantly over

the years. Steel, cement and labour are the key components and accounts for almost 75% of overall

construction cost and their prices have witnessed significant increase over the past few years. The input

cost on account of labour alone in the construction industry has increased by over 30% during the course

of the past couple of years. Besides, the current high interest rate scenario and inflation has also

accounted for the increase in the cost of construction and in turn the prices of houses. The rising house

prices are indicated/predicted by NHBRESIDEX also wherein in almost all the 20 cities covered under the

Residex, have shown increasing trend in prices of residential properties since 2007, the base year. In view

of the increase in land prices as also the cost of construction, the Task Force recommends that cost of the

dwelling unit in the housing projects sanctioned by banks exclusively for the purpose of construction of

houses to economically weaker sections and low income groups, be increased from Rs 5 lakhs to Rs10

lakhs per dwelling unit, to be considered as part of the Bank's Priority Sector lending.

This will provide the necessary boost to the construction agencies and developers to build houses for EWS

& LIG households as Rs 10 lakh will cover their entire cost of construction incurred in constructing such

houses. At the same time, it will provide them the adequate funds from the banks at competitively

reasonable rates.

9. RECOMMENDATIONS FOR DEMAND SIDE NON FINANCIAL INCENTIVES

A host of non-financialdemand side measures could also boost the Affordable Housing Sector and the AHTF

recommends that simultaneous action in this regard could go a long way to strengthen the sector. State

governments could look at ways to integrate, adopt, support and scale up some of the innovations that market and

non-governmental organisations are developing. A few such initiatives are shown in Box XV.



9.1 Key non-financial problems faced by low income group in accessing Affordable Housing

Feedback from government agencies, developers and other agencies involved indicate that economically

weaker and low income families who are interested in home ownership face the following problems:

· Entry barriers for securing home loans (lack of identity proof, address proof, income proof, etc.), due

to them being employed in the informal sector and living in informal settlements.

· Entry barriers in terms of the disinclination of financing agencies/ banks to provide home loans to

EWS/ LIG families, due to the higher perceived risk of lending to a segment that has fluctuations in

their income and the higher costs of servicing the smaller loans affordable by this segment.

· Lack of financial literacy, particularly in the matter of taking and repaying loans from formal

establishments such as housing finance companies, due to the limited education and lack of exposure

to formal institutions.

· Vulnerability to fluctuations in income often resulting in the inability to hold on the home, due to the

informal nature of their employment.

9.2 Case Studies of low income developers and housing finance agencies.

A few case studies from Pune and Ahmedabad, presented before AHTF committee reveals that there

has been initiatives by Private developers and Micro finance companies, working in tandem to serve

the low cost housing segments as may be seen in Box-XII, XIII and XIV. The customers predominantly

from the informal sector who lack documentation to prove incomes and therefore are not provided w i t h

housing finance by the mainstream banks or financial institutions are served by these Developers and

Micro finance companies. The Micro-finance companies have developed innovative methodologies of

'Know your client' to assess income of the buyers. The success of these projects mostly lies in the fact that

the developers and micro-finance companies complement each other by taking care of the interest of the

customers in this segment and utilize the market which is totally demand-driven.

Box XII : Examples of Initiatives of private developers for low cost housing in Pune

Vastushodh, a developer in affordable housing sectorhas so-far developed 3 million square feet under its two umbrella brands of 'Anandgram'

and 'UrbanGram’. The lower income housing developed and marketed as 'Anandgram' are priced in the range of INR 4-15 lakhs and in the

range of INR 15-30 lakhs for middle-income group of families.

The location of the projects with land size of 10 acres is 30-40 kms from city-centre with good connectivity. Vastushodh plans to further develop 10

million square feet and to bring Anandgram development on all six approach roads to Pune.

The customers are mix of formal & informal sector like Junior level IT resources, workers from manufacturing sector, self employed in small

business. The product are mix of 1 RK, 1 BHK and 2 BHK. Size of units are: 300 sqft for 1 RK, 400-420 for 1 BHK and 550-600 for 2 BHK.For housing

finance, the company has tie-up with lenders like MHFC, Gruh, DHFL & HDFC (Rural)

Source: Workshop on Affordable Housing, IHC, July, 2012



Box XIII : Examples of Initiatives of private developers for low cost housing in Ahmadabad

Foliage is a known player in Ahmedabad real-estate market. It evolved a distinct legal, operational and organizational structure in 2008 to address

the LIH opportunity in a sustainable and profitable manner.Atmiya Builders was setup as a separate strategic business unit in 2008 after Foliage's

recognition of lower income housing as a long-term strategic opportunity. LIH development is marketed under the 'Navjivan' brand. Thedwelling

units are available in the range of INR 5-10 lakhs.

The location of the projects is 15-20 kms for city-centre with good connectivity and in proximity to the large industrial areas.

The customers are mix of formal & informal sector like workers from manufacturing sector, self-employed in small business.

The product are mix of Mix of 1 RK ,1 BHK and 2 BHK; typically 1RK & 1BHK together account for90% or more of total units. Sizes of the units are 300-

350 sq.ft. for 1 RK; 450-600 sq.ft. for 1 BHK; 630-720 sq.ft. for 2 BHK.For housing finance, the company has tie-up with lenders like MHFC, DHFL

&Muthoot.


Box XIV : Examples of Initiatives of Micro-finance companies to serve low cost housing sectorMicro

Housing Finance Corporation Ltd started operations in 2009 and registered with NHB on 9th Feb 2009. It started lending to informal sector from

15th June 2009. It uses mobile and electronic technologies for interfacing with users including the collection of EMI, managing and maintaining

books of accounts etc.

Key Milestones

Touched 10 crores of lending on 16th March 2011 and achieved breakeven in 2012

Refinancing available from NHB/ ISHUP subsidy not offered

NHB interest subvention scheme offered – 1416 loans sanctioned with subsidy

Typical overall loan size of 4.2 lakhs

Total number of loans 1,416

Average loan size 4.2 lakhs

Default rates 0%

Average loan tenure 12 yrs

Interest rates- Formal 12%-14%

Interest rates- Informal 12%-14%

Geography of operation Gujarat, Maharashtra, Madhya P Pradesh, West Bengal, Chattisgarh

Percentage of Informal customers 100%

Percentage of loans below 10 lakhs 100%

Current size of loan book 40 Crs.




9.3 Key Recommendations for demand side interventions by State governments

Box XV: Examples of Initiatives to promote EWS/LIG home ownership

· Case No-1: Micro Housing Finance Corporation Ltd

· In the last few years, several new Housing Finance Companies have come up, who focus specifically on informal sector home buyers.

Micro Housing Finance Corporation Ltd (MHFC) is one such company. Other such companies include Muthoot Housing Finance Ltd, Home

First Housing Finance Ltd and Shubham Housing Finance Ltd.

· MHFC has developed a methodology of dealing with informal sector home buyers, which incorporates the following elements of demand

side support:

· Methods of estimating credit worthiness that are appropriate for informal income sources and earning patterns

· Customer education specific to home loans, such as banking processes (eg: ECS), identity documentation and repayment norms.

· Counselling on choice of home to buy (issues such as affordability versus aspiration)

Case No-2: GrihaPravesh

· Many non-profit organizations working with the urban poor are now exploring the possibility of helping low income households in moving

towards ownership of legal, mortgagable homes in the formal real estate market. Saath, an NGO based in Ahmedabad is one such

organization and GrihaPravesh is a housing facilitation centre that they have set up in collaboration with an affordable housing developer

(DBS Affordable Home Strategy Ltd) and with support from the Michael and Susan Dell Foundation. A similar initiative is also being

carried out by Mahila SEWA Housing Trust (MHT), another Ahmedabad based organization.

· GrihaPravesh is designed as a membership based community service organization, which provides the following services to its members:

· Facilitate the selection of appropriate housing

· Facilitate access to housing finance

· Facilitate access to community development initiatives such as:

· skill upgradation and improved livelihood opportunities

· cultivating banking habits and insurance

· access to health and education

· GrihaPravesh, started in mid-2011, had enrolled over a 100 members and organized several awareness programs by the end of the year.

They have also secured cooperation from other developers and Housing Finance Companies.

Considering this feedback, it is recommended that each state government and urban local body initiate programs

to create/ support entities that accelerate the home ownership process in low income groups through the

following generic types of interventions.

· As a facilitator to enable the EWS/ LIG families to access institutional credit including subsidies under

existing schemes.

· Outreach to low income families on the importance of home ownership for financial security.

· Educational programs for financial literacy with respect to home loans.

· Active handholding in the process of securing home loans and purchasing houses.

· Educational intervention in completed projects regarding building maintenance and community

management.



· Interventions in skill development livelihood, health and education in completed projects to

ensure the upward mobility of these low income home owners.

· Support new 'Know your client' procedures being adopted by new Housing finance providers.

· As mentioned the RAY guidelines the Task Force recommends the operationalization of the Rajiv

Awas Shelter Fund, to be used for funding a instrument to keep the slum/urban poor beneficiary

from turning defaulter due to unemployment, death or other genuine distress and thereby risk

forfeiture of dwelling unit and foreclosure on loan; the State Governments should develop

aninstrument could also have a specific window to share the lender's costs of servicing a loan.

· Other than this the State may also consider creating, or enabling, in each slum or city, an

Intermediating Agency between the lender and the borrower, which may be a Rajiv AwasYojana

Residents Housing Association of the slum dwellers, or such a housing association in collaboration

with a microfinance agency or a joint venture between a municipal or State Housing Board, which

will take care of tracking each borrower, and ensuring repayment. In the event of intentional

failure to pay the loan, this intermediating agency should also provide help to the lender to

foreclose on the mortgage.

· It may be possible and desirable to integrate many of the above interventions with already

existing poverty alleviation programs (e.g. SJSRY) of the state government and urban local body.

10. INDICATIVE QUANTIFICATION OF RECOMMENDED SUBSIDIES

10.1 Quantification of recommended subsidies as per the generic model

Based on the generic model adopted by the Task Force with the assumptions and calculations presented in

Annex-IX, the Tasks Force has quantified the per sq ft impact of each of the concessions recommended,

which is presented in Table 7 below.



Table 7: Summary of per sq.ft impact of the Task Force recommendations

Per Sq ft cost without support (all figures in Rs/sqft)

A. Waiver of Government taxes and charges

Land related taxes and charges

Stamp Duty on Land cost

Registration Charges

Planning approvals related

Coversion Charges (Residential)

Internal Development charge (IDC)

Building plan approval

External Dev Charges

Taxes and Cess

Cess

Service tax

Works contract tax

Works contract tax

Works contract tax

Reduction in per sq cost due to recommendations

B. Pass through effect on developer

margin

EWS

1400.0

7.56

0.58

6.97

11.62

4.65

18.59

8.00

32.96

32.00

122.92

18.44

LIG A LIG B

Total savings per sq ft

Net Cost per sq ft

Impact of reducing approval time

% cost reduction without AHP

Net Cost to user

C. Financial support to customers

Cost with Stamp Duty @ 1%

ISHUP Subsidy

Cost without support with 5% stamp duty

Net benefit per sq ft

Percentage benefit (AHP only)

Percentage benefit (ISHUP only)

Percentage benefit

(AHP and ISHUP together)

Effective Cost to user

AHP Subsidy per sq ft (EWS-1lk;LIG A -1 lk; LIGB -1.25lk)

141.4

1258.6

14.3

11%

967.8

977.4

237.36

1470.00

729.93

33.5%

30.84%

49.7%

740.07

276.6

1400.0

7.56

0.58

6.97

11.62

4.65

18.59

8.00

32.96

32.00

122.92

18.44

141.4

1258.6

14.3

11%

1078.4

1089.2

253.49

1470.00

634.31

25.9%

31.86%

43.2%

835.69

166.0

1400.0

7.56

0.58

6.97

11.62

4.65

18.59

8.00

32.96

32.00

122.92

18.44

141.4

1258.6

14.3

11%

1106.1

1117.1

168.99

1470.00

521.88

24.0%

26.09%

35.5%

948.12

138.3



As presented in the Table 6 above, if an AHP subsidy of 1 Lakh for EWS; 1 Lakh for LIG A and 1.25 Lakh for LIG

B is provided to bring down the cost of the dwelling unit directly and a ISHUP subsidy of 5% on loan sizes

upto 5 lakhs is applied along with all the other recommendations the impact on the DU costs can be quite

significant – in the case of EWS upto 46.1 %; LIG A upto 43.2 % and LIG B upto 35.5 percent. However it may

not be feasible and appropriate to apply both the financial subsidies to the same DU/beneficiary so if only

either one of AHP or ISHUP is applied the benefits could be between 28.8 to 31.95 % for EWS; 25.9 to 31.86

for LIG A and between 24.0 and 26.09 for LIG B.

10.2 States to develop Affordable housing policies/schemes

The Task Force recommends that States develop Affordable Housing Schemes/operational guidelines

aimed at providing similar concessions and to take optimum benefit of AHP scheme, while creating an

enabling framework for creation of affordable housing stock. The possible impact of State cocessions is

shown in Table 8

Table 8: Possible impact of State concessions, without capital and interest subsidies

State Govt. Subsidy calculations

Super built up area in sq ft

Cost of DU at Rs. 1400 sq.ft

Total of State Government concessions

Adj Cost of DU with benefit of

recommendations incl reduced stamp

duty to 1%

EWS

361.54

506150.4

51773

454377

LIG A

602.56

843584

86289

757295

LIG B

903.84

1265376

129433

1135943

The scheme/policy may have differing strategies and models across cities or even within a city. These

schemes/policies should provide clear incentives/concessions both financial and non-financial, which the

State/ULB would offer to affordable housing projects by the private sector. A suggested list of such

incentives/concessions are as follows:

· Financial Incentives:

· Government land (if offered) and its price

· Waiver of development related charges, such as External Development Charges (EDC), Building Plan

approval fees, Conversion charges, etc.; levied by State Government or Local Governments

· Reduction of stamp duty on buying dwelling units in Affordable Housing projects, should be down to a

minimum for EWS and LIG category and maximum upto 5% for MIG

· Buyback price for EWS/LIG DUs

· Non – Financial Incentives:



· Facilitate clearances including those from departments like Fire, Police, PWD, Land revenue etc for

approval of Affordable Housing Projects within a maximum period of 60 days.

· Additional FSI

· TDR framework

· Revision of building codes for EWS and LIG segments in group housing projects

· Demand side interventions such as programs to remove entry barriers for securing home loans (such

as lack of identity proof, address proof, income proof, etc.); and Entry barriers in terms of the

disinclination of financing agencies/ banks to provide home loans to EWS/ LIG families. Other

proactive action towards increasing financial literacy, particularly in the matter of taking and

repaying loans from formal establishments such as housing finance companies; and development of

mechanisms to reduce vulnerability of these sections to fluctuations in income. Finally, the Task Force

also recommends that the MoHUPA develop a regular mechanism and consider the constitution of a

small working group which can monitor and help implement these recommendations on the ground

by handholding the States closely.

11. SUGGESTIONS TO RECAST THE AHP SCHEME

11.1 Introduction

In response to the specific mention in the ToR for “Suggestions for various models for incentivizing the

private sector to the States especially with regard to reservation of land for EWS/LIG and their involvement

under Rajiv AwasYojona,” the Task Force also studied the AHP Scheme which has been dove-tailed with

Rajiv AwasYojana, as an instrument for attracting private sector into the low income housing market

segment.

The Affordable Housing in Partnership (AHP) Scheme, was initially launched in 2009. It is aimed at

operationalizing the strategy envisaged in the National Urban Housing & Habitat Policy (NUHHP) 2007, of

promoting various types of public-private partnerships – of the government sector with the private sector,

the cooperative sector, the financial services sector, the state parastatals, urban local bodies, etc. – for

realizing the goal of affordable housing for all. On the launch of the Rajiv AwasYojana (RAY), in 2011, AHP

was dove tailed with RAY, as it was envisaged to be a key instrument of creating affordable housing stock

thereby being part of the preventive strategy against formation of future slums.

The AHP scheme has a budget allocation of Rs 5000 crs and has a vision of supporting 1 million dwelling

units across the country. However since its launch in February 2009, there has been limited response to

the scheme. Till date only 8 projects, covering 5776 DUs have been sanctioned under the scheme.



One of the reform conditions under RAY is reservation of 20-25% of developed land for EWS/LIG

housing in every new public/private residential development. It was expected that land assembly

for providing affordable housing units to EWS/LIG segments shall be facilitated through this

condition.

The Task Force also obtained feedback from developers of affordable housing projects and State

Governments regarding the strengths/ weaknesses of the scheme and the implement ability of the reform

condition.

11.2 Observations and Recommendations of the Task Force on the AHP Scheme and the reform condition on

reservation of land

The Task Force notes that the Affordable Housing in Partnership Scheme of the GoI is a part of the

preventive strategy aimed at releasing adequate amount of housing units into the market so that future

growth of slums is avoided. The curative strategies of RAY will address the existing slums and therefore the

AHP scheme should focus on new development.

The basic aim of the amended AHP is to incentivise land assembly and increase the stock of affordable

housing and provide the option of rental housing and dormitories for new migrants to reduce the

alarming affordable housing deficit. The AHP scheme was designed as a subsidy for developers, both

public and private, who provide EWS/LIG units in their housing projects. It was also envisaged that

reform condition of reservation of developed land will require cross subsidies to be provided and that

the AHP scheme could be used as one of the instruments of subsidy for developers so that the costs of

the dwelling units can be brought down for the final beneficiaries. Thus, it was expected that the twin

constraints for affordable housing i.e unavailability of land and unaffordability of the cost of a

constructed house for the EWS/ LIG segment, will be addressed.

The Task Force notes that there are a few affordable housing projects in the market which meet the

guidelines of the Ministry with respect to physical specifications of EWS/LIG units; however, the units in

these projects are sold at a price higher than what is affordable for the EWS/LIG segments. They are also

not seeking subsidy under AHP. One of the prime reasons is that the effective subsidy is lower, thus making

It operationally inefficient for the developers to seek this subsidy.

The Task Force's own calculations has concluded that the EWS segment may be able to afford housing only

if it is made available at a cost of Rs 3 lakh per unit, whereas the smallest available housing unit in the

market is priced around Rs 6.0 lakhs. As against this, the AHP scheme allows for only Rs 50,000 as subsidy

per unit. Even this amount is not available due to ceilings imposed in the Scheme which is on account of

the condition that-. “Central Assistance under the scheme will be limited to least of following:



a) Rs. 50,000 per rental or Dwelling Unit for all dwelling units taking EWS, LIG and MIG units together

which are proposed in the project; and

b) 25% of the cost of all civic services (external and internal) proposed in the project

In all the projects approved/funded so far, the condition of 25% of the cost of all civic services has become the

upper ceiling as this has been lower amongst the two options mentioned above. Thus, the average AHP capital

support has come to only about Rs 10,000-15,000/ per affordable DU(which includes EWS, LIG and MIG units),

which translates to about Rs 19,000 -26,000/ per EWS DU. Therefore the effective subsidy under the AHP scheme is

much lower than the intended Rs 50,000.

a) The effective low level of subsidy under AHP has not attracted developers and this weakness has

had the following twoimpacts:

i. There are several ongoing affordable housing projects which may by and large meet the

dwelling unit size specifications for EWS/LIG. However, since the AHP subsidies are low, they

are not able to make the housing units affordable to the EWS/LIG segment. The projects are

effectively targeting buyers in the slightly higher income categories.

ii. Due to the reasons explained above, the existing projects do not qualify as Affordable Housing

projects. Therefore even the few buyers from the EWS/LIG segments in these projects do not

get the benefit of the AHP scheme. They will also not be eligible for the proposed service tax

exemptions. The developers of these projects also do not get the benefits available under Sec

35 AD of the Income Tax Act.

The Task Force is of the view that the AHP scheme is not finding adequate traction due to this limitation of

low effective subsidy per EWS/LIG dwelling unit, over and above the constraint of unavailability of land

which is discussed below. The AHP scheme intended to provide Rs 50,000 per Dwelling Unit for 1 million

units as central assistance, but linked the assistance to 25% of the cost of civic infrastructure. Thus, the

cost of housing and civic infrastructure were looked at separately while on the ground, both housing and

civic infrastructure are provided in an integrated fashion by developers. As a result of following the

separated approach, the effective subsidy has been low and did not sufficiently lower the integrated cost

of a dwelling unit (housing and infrastructure) to make it attractive thereby failing to achieve the intended

objective. Therefore, the Task Force recommends that the AHP scheme be revamped to provide a higher

effective subsidy per EWS unit to make it workable.

The Task Force also recommends that the AHP consider the total cost (housing and civic infrastructure)

while designing the effective subsidy. In this context it may be noted that housing has been a policy priority

for the GoI and the GoI already provides tax concessions on housing loan interest payments upto Rs

1,50,000 per year and principal repayment is also considered under income tax exemptions. The Task



Force notes that for a middle income housing loan of Rs 20 lakhs, the tax benefit in the first year of the loan

itself is Rs 30,900, assuming a conservative tax rate of 20.6% (20% tax slab and 3% education cess), 15 year

loan term and 9% interest rate. In the later years, the tax benefit reduces as the interest component in the

EMI comes down. Over the life of the housing loan, the total tax benefit is Rs 2 lakhs in net present value

assuming a discount rate of 9% (equal to the interest rate). The absolute amount of subsidy for a middle

income house is thus Rs 2 lakhs. The Task Force therefore recommends that the per DU subsidy under AHP

should be raised appropriately and the capital subsidy be focused on EWS units alone.

The Task Force has received feedback from developers that they may be permitted to meet the reservation

condition by purchasing affordable housing units from dedicated affordable housing projects in the

vicinity and selling them at prices as per the guidelines provided by the respective State Government/

Local Authority. If this is permitted, the policy objective of simultaneously releasing affordable housing

units concurrent with higher segment units will be met. This will provide operational benefits to

developers of higher income segment projects who will be able to focus on their market segment. It will

also help developers of dedicated affordable housing projects by minimising their market risk, since there

will be a steady demand from several developers. This would also be operationally simpler as it enables

virtual pooling of land. Moreover, it creates a business-business cross subsidy model for affordable

housing that can be pursued as a new strategy. The Task Force recommends that the reform condition on

reservation could be also met through such virtual reservation. The Task Force recommends that the

Ministry develop detailed guidelines, keeping in mind the following factors;

a) The units so purchased meet the EWS/LIG-A/LIG-B eligibility criteria; i.e, size specifications,

identification of beneficiaries and upper limit on sale price.

b) The units shall only be purchased from dedicated affordable housing projects that are

i. in localities that are within a radius of 5 kms from the project and where adequate civic

infrastructure has been already provided

and/or

ii. in zones that have the same or higher stamp duty valuations as that of the project

location as published by the State Government.

While assessing the dedicated affordable housing project for benefits under AHP, the affordable housing

units sold as virtual reservation to other developers will be excluded, to ensure that there is additionality

of the AHP outlay.

The Task Force has reviewed the current pattern of subsidy. AHP in its present form provides for a

uniform subsidy of Rs 50,000 per EWS, LIG and MIG unit. This discourages projects whose development

mix includes HIG as a means of cross subsiding the lower segments as they receive effectively a lesser

subsidy. As a result, this does not incentivise developments which provide / earmark more units/FAR for

the EWS, LIG units. The Task Force therefore recommends that the existing subsidy is restricted to only

EWS units as per proposed specifications and if MIG units are excluded, the subsidy per unit can be

enhanced without additional financial impact on the Government of India.



A majority of housing in India has been provided by the private sector for a long time. In the recent years,

as a result of increased urbanisation the demand for housing has increased exponentially. At the same

time, sustained economic growth and Government policies have increased demand for housing f r o m

urban residents. However, the supply of land for housing has not kept pace with these developments. As a

result, the private housing market has increasingly started focussing on the upper income segments. As

surplus land becomes scarce in urban areas, the demand-supply mismatch will aggravate; affordable

housing for low income segments and weaker sections is already unavailable and the gap will become

acute in the coming years. Traditionally, the State Housing Boards performed a gap filling role by

developing affordable housing units; they were supported by Government budgets and a land bank was

provided to them by the State Governments. However, in the last two decades, budgetary support for

these agencies has come down steadily and their role in providing affordable public housing has

decreased. During the same time, their land bank was also not replenished by the State Government. As a

result, today most State housing boards neither receive budgetary support nor have a land bank.

Ironically, their role in providing affordable housing is becoming more relevant with the widening demand

supply gap in the housing sector. The Task Force is of the opinion that the GoI should strongly support the

re-emergence of the state housing boards in the affordable housing segment. Therefore the AHP scheme

should also have a separate window for providing assistance to projects that are taken up by public sector

entities. The beneficiaries are to be selected and allotments made on a transparent procedure by the

State/Implementing agency e.g draw of lottery, based on detailed guidelines approved by the State/UT

government.

The Task Force recommends that the practice of fixing different price ceilings for affordable housing units

for different classes of cities should continue. In addition, the Task Force recommends that the States

factor in the benefit of the subsidies provided by the GoI and other State/local level subsidies while fixing

the ceiling price. The Task Force also recommends that the States should consider market factors like cost

escalation, phasing of the project, different economies of scale etc while determining the ceiling.

The AHTF recommends that the subsidy of the AHP Scheme should be targeted to EWS, LIG-A and LIG-B

segments only and not to the MIG segment as in the current formulation. The Task Force also recommends

that the rest of the development mix should be left to the market forces to determine, as long as the

minimum specified proportion is reserved for EWS/LIG-A/LIG-B units. As elaborated earlier, if MIG units

are excluded and the existing subsidy at a project level is redistributed only to EWS and LIG units, the

subsidy available to EWS/LIG units can be enhanced.

11.3 Routing of AHP subsidy

The request for subsidy should be routed through the respective State Level Nodal Agency(SLNA), which

shall also ensure beneficiary selection as per guidelines developed at the State level and a mechanism to

ensure that the AHP subsidy reaches the final beneficiaries and not used to fund project level

inefficiencies. In case of private sector projects, the subsidy could be passed on through the lead financing

institution for that project.



11.4 Recommendations of the Task Force on the subsidy aspect of the AHP Scheme

Based on the observations of the Task Force, the recommendations on the subsidy aspects of a revamped

AHP scheme are as below. This also draws on the strategy of the MoHUPA to focus capital subsidies on

either infrastructure or housing for the EWS category alone, while looking at alternative ways incl. interest

subsidies for the LIG segment. The AHTF therefore recommends that two windows for capital subsidy

under the AHP scheme should be operative simultaneously:

· Infrastructure focused scheme: Under this a project that meets the minimum critrea of AHP in

terms of reservation of DUs for EWS and LIG categories, with the rest of the mix of the project

remaining open, could receive 50% of the infrastructure costs of the project, limited to the

maximum of Rs 100,000/- per EWS DU into the total number of EWS units in the project. Since the

computation of infrastructure costs in some circumstances in difficult, it also proposes a dwelling

unit focused window as below.

· Dwelling unit focused scheme: Which will target Rs 100,000/- for EWS DUs alone. The amount of

Rs 100,000/- is arrived at based on the observations of the task force related to tax subsidies

available to the middle class and the computation that a ISHUP subsidy on a loan size of Rs 3.5

lakhs, given that being the average size of a EWS loan requirement, would be close to Rs 1 Lakh.



ANNEXURE SECTION



Annex I

Initial Terms of Reference including list of members of the Task Force







Annex II

Revised Terms of Reference and list of members of the Task Force





Sl

No

National/State Affordable

Housing Policy

Year Key incentives to the developer

1 National National Urban

Housing

and Habitat Policy

2007 §Relaxation of FAR

§Ensuring that 20-25 % of the FAR are reserved fo r

EWS / LIG

§Issuanc e of TD R on road widening clearance for

transport bottlenecks in the inn er-city areas

§Availab ility of add itional FAR in Outer Zon es

2 Rajasthan Affordable

Housing Policy

(With focus on

EWS/LIG housing:

For Urban areas

of Rajasthan )

2009 §Dou ble of the normal FAR,TDR faci lity, for selected

projects

§Waiver of EDC, building plan approval fee,

con version charges,

§10% of the total land allowed fo r commerc ial use,

§Fast track approval.

3 Madhya

Pradesh

Housing &

Habitat Policy

2007 §Addit ion al FSI wil l be given for providing higher

developed areas for EWS/LIG hou sing.

§One time transfer of additional FAR to ano ther

location prescribed will be permitted under TDR

Scheme.

4 Maharashtra Maharashtra

State

Housing policy

2007 §Developer shall be paid TDR equivalent to FSI the

area of land provided fo r rehabil itation pro ject

§TDR is available against the free-sale compon ent

which is approved by the SRA.

5 Uttar Pradesh Urban Housing

Policy

1995 §Developer will cross sub sidize the cost of EWS and

LIG hou ses from HIG and other h igher users under

the project. For th is purpose, developer will get free

transferable FAR equivalent to ground coverage of

LIG/EWS houses.

6 Karnataka KarnatakaHousing

and Habitat

Policy (draft)

2009 §Permission for multi-stored f lats for EWS/LIG in core

city areas along with commercial compo nent and

appropriate incentives for PPP.

7 Gujarat Draft Policy §The inc entive of add itional FSI of 50% of the FSI

con sumed in slum redevelop ment is offered to the

land owner/developer for the development on the

remain ing land

8 West Bengal

(Kolkata)

There is no

codified policy for

“Affordable

Housing” in West

Bengal but

initiative has

taken to build

EWS & LIG

housing under

the flagship of

§Land is provided by State government

§State Government helps with ob taining bu ild ing p lan

clearances

Annex IIIState Policies on Housing and recommended incentives



Central Government/and Central

Government Committees

Independent

advisory

organizations

Notification by the CBDT

- under Section 35AD of

the Income-tax Act

State level

AHP(2009

& then

amendme

nt in

2011)

ISHUP(20

09)

High Level

Task Force

on

Affordable

Housing for

All’ (Chaired

by Deepak

Parekh),200

8

KPMG(2

010)

MGI

(2010)

Provisions under Section

35 AD notification

Rajasth

an

West

Bengal

(Kolkata)

Madhya

Pradesh

Mumbai

Metropoli

tan

Region

(MMR)

1 Size of

the DU

(a)In

terms of

Super built

up area

EWS:

about 300

square

feet

LIG: 500

square

feet

EWS& LIG:

300 -600

sq.ft *

MIG: Not

exceeding1,

200 sq ft *

*Carpet

area

EWS:

Upto

300 sq.

ft.

LIG: 300

to 600

sq. ft.

MIG:

600 to

1200 sq.

ft.

Carpet Area Reservation

Category Specifi

ed

cities(

sq.mtr

s)

Other

cities

(sq.mtr

s)

EWS Upto

25

Up to

30

EWS:

325

sqft*

LIG:

500

sqft*

MIG:

minim

um 600

sq. ft *

EWS:

200

square

feet *

LIG: 400

square

feet *

MIG :

600-

800 sq

feet *

EWS: 30

to

39sq.m.

*

LIG: 49

to 58

sq.m*

* Built

up area

225 sq. ft.

- 270 sq.

ft. for

affordabl

e housing

units.

Annex IV

Summary of different definitions of Affordable Housing

Task

Force

on

Pro

mo

ting

Affo

rda

ble

Ho

usin

g

62

TAS

K F

OR

CE

RE

PO

RT

20

12

MIG: 600

to 1200

square

feet

(b) In

terms of

carpet

area EWS-

minimum

25 square

meters

LIG-

maximum

48 square

meters

MIG-

maximum

80 square

meters

LIG Great

er

than

25 &

up to

50

Greater

than 30

& up to

60

MIG Great

er

than

50 &

up to

70

Greater

than

60& up

to 85.

*Super

built up

area

* Plinth

area

2 Minimum

no of DU

Projects

with a

minimum

of 200

NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA

Task

Force

on

Pro

mo

ting

Affo

rda

ble

Ho

usin

g

63

TAS

K F

OR

CE

RE

PO

RT

20

12

affordable

houses

would be

enter-

tained.

3 Allocatio

n of DU

A mix of

EWS/LIG/

MIG

where in

EWS –at

least 25%.

NA NA NA NA EWS –at least 30%

EWS+ LIG –at least 60%

EWS +LIG+MIG –at least

90%

Other residential &

commercial units -10%.

NA NA NA NA

4 Monthly

income

NA EWS:

Average

income of

Rs 3300.

LIG : Rs

3301 to Rs

7300.

NA EWS:

<Rs 1.5

lacs per

annum

LIG : Rs

1.5 to 3

lacs per

annum

MIG: Rs

3 to 10

EWS:

<Rs

90,000

per

annum

LIG: Rs

90,000

to Rs

200,000

per

annum

NA EWS:

Up to

Rs

3,300

LIG: Rs

3, 301

to 7,

500

MIG:

Rs

7,501

EWS: Up

to Rs

10,000

LIG: Rs

10,001-

15,000

MIG:Rs

15,001-

40,000

EWS: Up

to Rs

5000

LIG: Rs

5001 to

10,000

Note:

The

monthly

income

criterion

is either

NA

Task

Force

on

Pro

mo

ting

Affo

rda

ble

Ho

usin

g

64

TAS

K F

OR

CE

RE

PO

RT

20

12

lacs per

annum

to Rs

14,500

mention

ed

above

or as

specifie

d by

HUDCO

or

Govern

ment of

India

from

time to

time.

5 EMI

capacity

of users

Not

exceeding

30% to

40% of the

monthly

income

NA Not

exceeding 30

percent of

the

household's

gross

monthly

income for

EWS/LIG unit.

30% to

40% of

the

monthly

income

NA NA NA NA NA NA

Task

Force

on

Pro

mo

ting

Affo

rda

ble

Ho

usin

g

65

TAS

K F

OR

CE

RE

PO

RT

20

12

6 Maximu

m price

of the DU

NA NA Notexceedin

g four times

the

household

gross annual

income

< 5.1

times

annual

income

NA NA EWS-

Rs.

1.90

lacs

LIG Rs

3.25

lacs

EWS-Rs

1.75

lakhs

LIG Rs

4.10lakh

s

MIG-Rs

9.20

lakhs

To Rs

15.00

lakhs

NA NA

7 Subsidy

clearance

through

Singlewin

dow

NA NA NA NA NA NA Throug

h single

window

devel-

oper

get

subsidy

NA NA NA

Task

Force

on

Pro

mo

ting

Affo

rda

ble

Ho

usin

g

66

TAS

K F

OR

CE

RE

PO

RT

20

12

Short listing of the proposals by the State Nodal

Agency

Invitation of proposal under EOI (Floated by the State

Nodal Agency)

Empanelment of successful developer for the housing

scheme

Proposal for development of the scheme by the

successful developer to the State Nodal Agency

Issuance of in principle approval by the State

Government

Registration to be opened for booking the flats

On the basis of the letter of in-principle approval, scheme to be submitted by the developer within 15 days to the State Nodal Agency along

with detailed project report including technical estimate, layout of the scheme area, design maps of the houses, work plan of t he scheme ,

change in land use (if required) etc. State Nodal Agency to forward proposals to the concerned local Authority and coordinate for approval.

Approval on the following by the local authority (Maximum 60 days)

Approval of building planApproval of Layout Plan Land use change (Agriculture land

to residential)

Start of construction work

Annex V

Generalized Affordable Housing Implementation framework based on the

Rajasthan Model



Bed Ro

Bath

WC

Lobby

Living

50% B

Kitche

Total

Load o

Assum

Outerw

Innerw

Carp

L

oom 2

1

1

1

Room 3

Balcony

en 1

on Carpet Ar

mptions

wall 0.2

wall 0.1

pet Area

B

.450 2.700

.200 1.000

.135 0.90

.250 1.000

.215 2.600

.600 1.900

rea

2286

1143

L*B

0 6.615

0 1.200

0 1.02

0 1.250

0 8.359

0.840

0 3.040

22.326

B

L B

2.793 2

1.486 1

1.3636

1.307 1

3.329 2

1.829 2

Builtup

L*B

2.986 8.33

1.171 1.74

1.13 1.53

1.114 1.45

2.829 9.55

2.243 4.10

27

8901 Balco

40482 Corr

8959 Stair

6557

4418 Tota

0.84

C+S p

flat

01367

7.571

Supe

Built

Area

23%

S

L

ony

idor 2.2

rcase 2.2

l (C+S)

per

er

t Up

a

uper Built U

B

1.4

2286

2286 3

p

L*B

1.2

1 2

.61 8.054

10

2

30

1.68

2.229

4829

0.283

2.571

0.982

39%

Annex-VILoading on Carpet Area for EWS



Bed

Stud

Bat

WC

Lou

Kitc

Lob

Balc

Tota

Loa

Ass

Out

d Room

dy room

h

nge

chen

bby

cony 50%

al

d on Carpet

umptions

terwall

Carpet Area

L B

2.4

2.4

1.29

1

4.11

1.6 2

1

Area

0.2286

B L*B

3

2.4 5

1.2 1.5

1

3 12

2.29 3.6

1.2

34.5

Innerw

L

7.2 2.5714

5.76 2.514

548 1.4614

1 1.228

2.33 4.224

664 1.7714

1.2

1.8

Balcon

50%

502

wall 0.114

Built Up a

B

45 3.17145

43 2.5143

45 1.37145

86 1.17145

43 3.1143

45 2.5186

1 1.2

ny

43

area

L*B

5 8.155225

3 6.321704

5 2.004306

5 1.439243

3 13.15574

6 4.461574

2 1.2

1.8

38.538

12%

5 Balcony

4 Balcony1

6

Total

Balcony

3

4 Corridor

4 Staircase

2

Total

(C+S)

8

C+S per

flat

8

%

Super built

L

2.5

1

2.1143

2.1143

t up area

B

1.2

0.6

2.3143 4.8

4.4043 9.3

14

3.5

43

L*B

3

0.6

3.6

893124

312011

4.20514

551284

3.88907

27%

Annex-VIILoading on Carpet Area for LIG



Annex-VIII

Summery of the proposal for revision in regards to fixation of income ceilings for

ISHUP Scheme

ISHUP and its linkage with income ceilings

1. Government of India has launched the Interest Subsidy Scheme for Housing the Urban Poor

(ISHUP) as a key policy instrument for channelizing the flow of credit to address the housing

needs of the EWS/LIG segments in urban areas by enabling to gain access to formal sector

credit, at affordable cost through the use of the banking industry in the country. The scheme

was launched in 2008 and provided for a 5 per cent interest subsidy to EWS and LIG loan

borrowers. This was premised on defined income ceilings of LIG and EWS segments, based on

prevailing conditions and assessments during 2007-08.

th2. The scheme has technically come to an end as on 31 March 2012, i.e., the last year of the 11 Five

Year Plan, with the provision that loans extended during that period would be honored under the

terms of the scheme.

3. The Ministry is in the process of revamping and re-launching ISHUP for making the needed impact

in addressing housing needs of the urban poor. The redesign includes the scheme to be re-

launched on a larger scale, with a target driven approach, changed operational modalities

including measures for incentivizing and enhancing active bank participation etc. A component of

the revamping process is to appropriately review and re-fix income ceiling levels for EWS/LIG

that would be relevant, contemporary and applicable for the12th Five year plan duration ( since

costs and other circumstances have changed since the previous ceilings were set).

4. Since presently the Steering Committee responsible for monitoring and administering of the

stexisting scheme stands dissolved as on 31 March 2012, and the new Steering Scheme is yet to be

established along with the revamped scheme guidelines, a proposal has been sent to the

Hon'(ble) Minister HUPA for approval of the revised income ceilings for EWS/LIG,as worked out

below. Once the revised Income Ceilings are approved by the Hon'ble Minister, EFC with the

revised Income Ceilings would be forwarded to Ministry of Finance and Planning Commission.

The enhanced income ceiling definitions as recommended in the 2nd Meeting of the Steering

Committee of ISHUP and after soliciting comments from the Planning Commission and the

Department of Expenditure, Ministry of Finance were duly incorporated and proposed/adopted

in the 3rd Steering Committee meeting in 2009 as below. Views and responses had also been

solicited from states.:-.



Table- 2: Proposed revision in income ceilings

1 2 3

2008 2009 2009

Scheme guideline Proposed by 2nd Steering

committee

Adopted by the 3rd Steering

Committee based on Planning

Commission’s suggestions.

EWS Upto Rs.3000 UptoRs.4100 UptoRs. 5000

LIG Rs.3301-Rs.7300 Rs.3301- Rs.7300 Rs.5001-Rs. 10000

Table-A Comparison of Income Ceilings derived by six methods

(Rs.)

Parameter Index/Refernce EWS LIG

Income Growth in Per

Capita Income

( PCI)

7477 14953

Income Minimum Wages for

non-agricultural

workers

8000 16000

Expenditure Monthly Per Capita

Expenditure

( MPCE)

8500 17000

Price:

residential

NHB’s RESIDEX 7619 15238

Price: General Consumer Price

Index

6796 13592

Price: General Consumer Food

Price Index

6762 13524

1. The last revision was undertaken in 2009. To counteract the impact on the poor of increased cost

of construction, inflationary pressures, banker perceptions on loan affordability etc. there is a

pressing need for a fresh revision in the income ceiling references for EWS/LIG with the specific

reference to application of the proposed revamped ISHUP scheme to align with the current

income and cost increases.

2. This ministry had requested HUDCO to provide computation for proposed income revision.

HUDCO based their recommendations on six parameters for income ceiling assessment and

projections. These are based on trends in identified income parameters, expenditure parameters,

general price parameters and specific price trends in residential housing. A composite summary

and comparative statement highlighting the income levels derived by the application of the six

alternative methods is shown in the table below:.



A pragmatic approach would be to adopt averaging of these varied figures derived from various factors

indicating the income and expenditure levels of urban poor. The figures work out to Rs. 7526 for EWS and

Rs. 15051 for LIG. Factoring in sufficient cushion for taking care of increases in these parameters in the

near future, it is proposed to fix the income ceiling for EWS at Rs. 8000/- and that for LIG at Rs. 16000/-



MODEL FOR AFFORDABLE HOUSING IN PARTERSHIP

Private developers on land owned by them, Mixed type of EWS, LIG, MIG and HIG

INCENTIVES: FAR: 2.00 Gro und coverage: 50% and Density: 350 (Maximum limit)

PARTICULARS EWS LIG -A LIG-B MIG

HIG/

COMM-

ERCIAL Total Remarks

Carpet Area as proposed in AHTF Report (21-27 m2)

(28-40m2)

(41-60m2)

(61-80m2)

Average Carpet Areain m2 24.00 40.00 60.00 70.50

Super-built-up area inm2 33.60 56.00 84.00 98.70 154.00

in Sqft 361.54 602.56 903.84 1062.01 1657.04

Minimum % of total FAR proposed 25% 25% 10% 10% 30% 100%

Land Area in Hectre 1.00

Land Area in Sqm 10000

Land area in Sqft 107600

Land Area in Acre 2.49

FAR 2.00FAR 2.00 isoptimum. *

Total Super BuiltupArea in Sqm 20000

Total Super Built-upArea in Sqft 215200

Super Built-up area in m2 for categories 5000 5000 2000 2000 6000 20000

Nos of DU 149 89 24 20 39 321

% of Dwelling Units actually achieved 46% 28% 7% 6% 12% 100%

50% Ground coverage 5000DensityDU/Hectare 321

Densitynear 350 **

Nos of Floors 4 G+3

Nos. of DUs andDensity if stipulation ofCBDT Notification isfollowed *** 79 55 31 6 427

Densitymore than400

* FAR fully consumed within total 4 floors without the use of lift and below 15 m height restriction of NBC and also to

keep Density below 350 DU/Hectre and Sale Price within Rs 1600/Sqft

** High density of 500 DUs/Hectre is allowed as per NBC, but only for Cluster development ,

350 may be recommended for revision by NBC from present 150 Dus/Hectre for Affordable

Housing projects and 175 Dus/Hectre for Group Housing projects.

***If stipulation of CBDT Notification No. 1/2012 [F. No. 142/24/2011-SO(TPL)] dated 2-1-

2012 for Affordable Housing under Section 35 AD of Income tax as 30% for EWS, 60% for

EWS + LIG and 90% for EWS+LIG+ MIG is followed:

Annex-IX

Model for Affordable Housing In Partnership



ANALYSIS OF COST OF A REAL ESTATE PROJECT

MAJOR HEADS SUB HEADS Unit Rate Rs AMOUNT Percent

LANDRs

300/Sqft

Land cost Acre 300.01,30,68,000 3,25,39,320

Sitedevelopment, 5% of land 16,26,966

Stamp Duty on Land cost 8% of land 16,26,966

RegistrationCharges acre 50,000 1,24,500

TOTAL 3,59,17,752 10%

GOVT. FEES & CHARGES

CoversionCharges(Residential) sqmtr 150 15,00,000

InternalDevelopmentcharge (IDC) sqmtr 250 25,00,000

Building plan approval

Sqmtr of Builtup area 20,000 50 10,00,000

External Dev Charges

Sqmtr of Builtup area 20,000 200 40,00,000

TOTAL 90,00,000 3%

EXTERNALDEVELOPMENT

Roads &Footpath

Rs 200/ Sqftof 50% of

open area of plot Sqft 200.00 1,08,46,440

Water supply,Sewage,Drainage

ExternalElectrification

Compoundwall & gate,

TOTAL 1,08,46,440 3%

CONSTRUCTION

Dwelling Units including Electrical,Plumbing and Fire Services

EWS/LIG/MIG-A includingCommunitybuildings likeSchools,Communityhall Sqft 1,29,120 800 10,32,96,000

MIG-B/HIG/COMMERCIAL Sqft 86,080 1,200 10,32,96,000

TOTAL 20,65,92,000 60%



BANK INTEREST /INSURANCE

Bank TermLoan/Insurance

of contructioncost 5.0%

1,03,29,600

TOTAL 1,03,29,600 3%

TAXES

Cess

ofconstructioncost 1% 20,65,920

Service tax

ofconstructioncost 4.12% 85,11,590

Works contracttax

ofconstructioncost 4% 82,63,680

TOTAL 1,88,41,190 5%

SALE RELATED COSTS Promotion

ofconstructioncost L/S 2.5% 51,64,800

TOTAL 51,64,800 1%

ADMINISTRATIVECOST

HREmployment,office etc of

constructioncost

0.5% 10,32,960

Maintenancecharge L/S 2.0% 41,31,840

TOTAL 51,64,800 1%

TOTAL COST 30,18,56,582 87%

ADD

DevelopmebrMargin+overhead 15% 4,52,78,487 13%

Cost of Project+ Profit 34,71,35,070 100%

Averagecost - Rs/Sqft 1,613

Say Rs 1600/Sqft

• Since the Construction cost for EWS/LIG is considered as Rs 800/sqft in place of Rs 1200/sqft

for higher income group, the overall average cost for EWS/LIG segment is Rs 1400/sqft.



For further details, please contact:Additional Secretary & Mission Director (JNNURM &RAY)


Government of India

Room 116-G, NBO Building,

NirmanBhawan, New Delhi-110108

Tel: +91 11 23061419 | Fax: +91 11 23061420

E-Mail : [email protected]

Date post:	09-Jun-2018
Category:	Documents
Upload:	phamkhuong
View:	215 times
Download:	0 times

Task force on Promoting Affordable Housingnaredco.in/notification/pdfs/Draft Task Force Report...

Documents